content_gaps

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

The description includes strong behavioral instructions: base analysis only on returned data, report exact numbers, do not speculate on causes, and present as an interactive visualization. With no annotations provided, these instructions carry the full burden of transparency and do so effectively.

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 moderately long but well-structured with 'IMPORTANT' and 'PRESENTATION' sections. Each part conveys necessary guidance, though the presentation instructions are quite detailed and could potentially be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (queries meeting the stated criteria) and provides analysis guardrails. It doesn't detail exact result fields or limitations, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly in most cases.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (days, min_position, min_impressions) with 100% coverage. The description references the logic ('rank beyond position 20') but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Find topics you should create content for' and specifies the exact criteria (impressions but rank beyond position 20), distinguishing it from siblings like ctr_opportunities or traffic_drops. The verb and resource are specific, and the logic is well-defined.

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 the use case for content gap analysis but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like content_recommendations or ctr_opportunities. It provides clear context about the analysis approach but lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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