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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds context about the type of output (queries and pages) but does not disclose behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or how 'losing clicks' is precisely defined. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient list of three opportunity criteria. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrases. Every element contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of what the tool finds. It does not describe the result format (e.g., a list of objects), but that is not essential for an agent to understand the purpose. The main gap is that it does not mention the time-comparison logic (already in the days parameter) or how 'losing clicks' is calculated, but these are partially covered by the parameter docs. Overall, the description is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (days, site, limit), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it does not explain how 'days' affects the comparison or how 'site' scopes the search. Since the schema already covers these, the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 precisely enumerates three concrete opportunity types: high-impression/low-click queries, queries ranking #8-20, and pages losing clicks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like content_decay or indexing_gaps, which target different specific patterns. The verb 'find' and the resource (opportunities) are implied by the name and context, and the description gives an actionable definition.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools. While the description explains what it does, it leaves the agent to infer when it should be chosen over other diagnosis tools (e.g., content_decay or keyword_clashes).

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