Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not mention how queries are ranked, what thresholds are applied by default, how large the result set may be, or what the output contains. Only the conceptual definition of cannibalization adds value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action, with the technical term aiding recognition. It is not padded, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but a six-parameter analysis tool with zero schema description coverage and zero usage guidance is significantly under-documented. An agent cannot know how to set thresholds or date ranges from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to do so. The phrase 'multiple pages compete' loosely hints at min_pages_per_query, but min_impressions, start_date, end_date, row_limit, and site_url are never explained, nor are their defaults or units.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Find queries where multiple pages compete') and defines the term 'keyword cannibalization' in parentheses, so the agent knows exactly what class of analysis this performs. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like find_quick_wins or find_content_decay, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. site must be connected to Search Console), and no mention of alternatives such as find_quick_wins or get_search_by_page_query. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.