Keyword cannibalization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining that results list competing pages with clicks, impressions, and position. It does not mention data lag or limits like top/minImpressionsPerPage, but it does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful return-behavior context.

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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then expands on result contents and intended use. Every clause contributes meaning, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is compact 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?

The description explains the core concept and result structure, but without an output schema it should provide more guidance on limits, default thresholds, and parameter behavior—especially since several parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool is relatively specialized, so basic usage is clear, but an agent would still need to infer details about minImpressionsPerPage and top. This is adequate but not complete.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining key parameters such as top, minImpressionsPerPage, or searchType. It mentions queries, impressions, clicks, and position, but these are output concepts rather than parameter semantics. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides for startDate, endDate, and siteUrl, leaving several parameters ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find queries for which two or more pages of the site receive impressions'. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_opportunities, which address different GSC reporting needs. It also explains the downstream action ('consolidate or differentiate'), giving the agent an unambiguous sense of what this tool is for.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when pages are competing for the same keyword and you want to consolidate or differentiate them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is stated well enough that an agent can match it to the user's intent. A fully explicit when-to-use versus alternatives statement would push this to 5.

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