seo_striking_distance

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states output is a list of queries sorted by impressions, but does not mention whether it is read-only, pagination limits, or other metrics (e.g., clicks). The behavior is adequately described for a simple listing tool but lacks some detail.

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, direct and efficient. The first sentence states the action and criteria, the second explains the strategic value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It fails to document parameters or return structure. Output schema exists but description does not reference it. Essential context is missing for effective tool usage.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters (site, days, min_impressions). This is a critical gap, as users must rely on property names alone. The description adds no value here.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists queries between positions 8-15 sorted by impressions descending. It explains the relevance ('best candidates for ranking improvement'), distinguishing it from generic analytics tools like get_search_analytics. The verb 'List' and specific ranking range provide precise purpose.

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?

Description implies usage for identifying queries close to page 1 that can be improved. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts or compare to sibling tools like seo_lost_queries, but the context is clear. Could mention when not to use (e.g., for queries already on page 1).

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