Find SEO opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'ranked, deduped list with a reason for each item,' and explains the two opportunity types. This is adequate for a read-only analysis tool.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, ~40 words) and front-loaded with the core value proposition 'Surface actionable wins'. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the opportunity logic and the nature of the output. Minor improvement could specify prerequisites like Search Console access.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall output (ranked, deduped) and the logic behind the opportunities, complementing the parameter-specific schema.

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: to surface actionable SEO opportunities. It specifies two concrete categories ('striking distance' and high-impression/low-CTR) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_search_analytics, top_pages, or top_queries by focusing on opportunities rather than raw data.

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 explains when to use the tool by defining the opportunity types (positions 5-20 and high-impression/low-CTR). It implicitly guides usage for finding quick wins, but does not explicitly exclude cases where other tools might be more appropriate.

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