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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The word "stored" usefully signals precomputed/cached evidence rather than live analysis, but nothing is said about freshness, result volume, or pagination behavior. Credit for the added "stored" context, penalty for the rest.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the concrete evidence types and followed by the use case. The evidence enumeration is dense but each item is meaningful; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does help by naming what categories come back. However it omits pagination semantics for limit/cursor and any sense of ordering or result size, leaving an agent under-informed about how to page through stored gaps.

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 coverage is 33% – only siteId is documented, while limit and cursor are undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about these parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 names the specific evidence categories returned (query-not-in-content, low-CTR, snippet/title alignment, questions, refresh) and frames the tool as gap discovery, enough to separate it from siblings like find_cannibalization or find_content_decay. It lacks an explicit contrast with those siblings, keeping it below 5.

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?

"Use for page optimization and new-content ideas" gives a use case but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives for when a sibling tool would be better. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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