get_content_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns zero/low-result queries) and the interpretative aspect (gaps in documentation). It doesn't mention read-only or data freshness, but for a simple analytics getter, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clear use case. Every phrase earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with optional params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and value. It doesn't describe the return format, but the output (search queries) is inferable from the description and schema.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions and defaults, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but none is needed; parameters like 'days' and 'min_searches' are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns search queries from analytics data with zero or low results, specifically identifying topics users searched but documentation doesn't cover. This specific verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs or list_topics.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to identify missing documentation,' giving a clear context. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose makes when-to-use implicit. It could have been stronger by contrasting with related tools.

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