gsc_cannibalisation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral expectations: not speculating, reporting exact numbers, and presenting results as interactive visualizations. These add significant context beyond the tool name and schema. However, it doesn't detail return format or data source specifics, so it's not a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds clear IMPORTANT and PRESENTATION sections. It is somewhat long but each section earns its place by guiding the agent's behavior. The structure makes it scannable, though the presentation instructions could be considered generic across GSC tools.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description mentions what the tool shows (competing pages, positions). It also instructs how to handle insufficient data. With 0 required parameters and a simple input schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool properly, though more detail on the exact return structure would be helpful.

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?

All three parameters (days, dataset, min_impressions) have descriptions in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('keywords where multiple pages from your site compete'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on cannibalisation and ranking positions. This is exactly the level of specificity expected.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool and what to do with the data ('Base your analysis ONLY on the data returned', 'Do not speculate'), but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. The distinct purpose is implied, so it's slightly above missing guidance but not fully explicit.

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