gsc_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that results are heuristics, not official errors — which calibrates the agent's trust in the output. But it omits whether the tool is read-only, what happens with unverified siteUrl, date-range limits, and the effect of the minImpressions/limit thresholds on results.

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?

A single sentence with the detection criteria front-loaded and no filler; the heuristic caveat is attached efficiently at the end. It is appropriately sized, though the criteria and the caveat could be split for faster scanning.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return shape (ranked list? fields per query?), the meaning of limit, or any pagination. For a 5-parameter heuristic-detection tool, the conceptual framing is present but the operational details an agent needs are missing.

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 60%: siteUrl and both dates are documented in-schema, but minImpressions and limit are not described anywhere. The description mentions CTR and position thresholds but never ties these to parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete resource (queries) and the exact detection criteria — low CTR in top 10, or average position between 10 and 20 — plus a framing note that these are heuristics. It is specific enough to predict the output, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like gsc_query_advanced or gsc_search_performance, and it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'detect'.

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 phrase 'conviene investigar' implies the usage context (SEO opportunity triage), so the intent is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to the sibling tools (gsc_query_advanced, gsc_page_performance) that overlap in scope. Guidance is implied, not stated.

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