detect_cannibalization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds useful semantic context about what counts as a candidate and warns against over-interpreting overlap, but says nothing about latency, scope limits, or how results are windowed beyond the days parameter.

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 core purpose and its caveat are front-loaded in two tight sentences, followed by a scannable Args block. Nothing is redundant, though the Args section slightly duplicates parameter names already visible in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three input parameters are documented despite 0% schema coverage. The only modest gap is the absence of guidance on how to act on flagged pairs or how this tool relates to the broader analytics siblings.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all three parameters: site_url as the 'Exact GSC property URL', days as look-back with a default of 28, and min_impressions as the per-query-page-pair threshold with a default of 5. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema, though it does not clarify format (e.g., trailing slash on the property URL).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: identifies queries that appear for multiple pages, framed as cannibalization candidates. The concept is distinct from any sibling (e.g., get_search_by_page_query, find_striking_distance_keywords), but the description never names or differentiates against them, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 second sentence adds interpretive guidance ('overlap alone does not prove harmful competition'), which helps an agent frame results, but it never says when to invoke this tool versus related analytics tools like get_search_by_page_query or get_search_analytics. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly scoped.

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