Cross-site internal linking opportunities

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

The annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it only suggests links rather than creating them, and it optionally fetches top candidate pages to check for existing cross-domain links.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the optional fetching behavior is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 analysis tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand selection and invocation: core inputs, purpose, and optional fetch behavior. Minor gaps around filtering parameters and return format remain, but the defaults and clear purpose prevent serious confusion.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies siteA/siteB as owned properties on the same topic and mentions the optional candidate-page fetch, but it does not explain key parameters like startDate, endDate, minImpressions, or top. This is a meaningful, though partial, contribution.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: find pages on two owned Search Console properties that rank for overlapping queries and suggest cross-links between them. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gsc_opportunities or gsc_cannibalization by focusing on cross-site link suggestions.

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?

The description explicitly states the context: for two Search Console properties the user owns on the same topic. It gives clear conditions for when the tool applies, though it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion cases.

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