get_striking_distance_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default position range (4-15) and sorting by impression volume, but it does not explain how parameters like position_min/max override defaults or if the tool is read-only. The behavioral description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and a key behavior (sorting). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is brief but covers the main concept. However, it does not explain how parameters influence results (e.g., adjusting position range or impression threshold), leaving some gaps for a complete understanding. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the default range (4-15) already present in the schema's default values for position_min and position_max. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 finds queries 'ranking in striking distance of page 1' with a default range of positions 4-15, and results are sorted by impression volume. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_top_opportunities' which likely targets top positions rather than near-top.

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 tool is used for identifying high-potential queries near page 1, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_top_opportunities' or 'get_page_performance'). No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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