get_content_gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (search queries with zero or low results) and how that relates to documentation gaps, providing transparent intent. No hidden side effects or operations are implied; the 'Returns' wording clearly indicates a read-only operation.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence provides a clear use case without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete. It states the return value (search queries) and the condition (zero or low results), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. No further elaboration is needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Parameter descriptions like 'Lookback window in days' and 'Only include queries searched at least this many times' are self-explanatory, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('search queries from the analytics data'), and clarifies the purpose of identifying missing documentation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs or list_topics, which are about retrieving existing documentation.

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 when to use this tool: 'Use this to identify missing documentation.' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since this is a specialized gap-analysis tool, the guidance is sufficient without exclusions.

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