seo_cannibalization

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the algorithm (HHI), the conflict_score formula, and the min_impressions filter. This provides good transparency about how the tool behaves, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, algorithm, formula, filter. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.

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 presence of an output schema (indicated true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers inputs and algorithm sufficiently for a 3-parameter analytical tool. Could briefly mention the output shape but not required.

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?

The description adds meaning for min_impressions (filtering noise) but does not elaborate on site or days. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but could provide more detail for all parameters.

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's purpose: detecting queries where multiple pages compete for the same ranking slot. It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('queries'), making it distinct from sibling tools like seo_striking_distance.

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 implies usage for SEO analysis and keyword cannibalization detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude certain scenarios. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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