detect_cannibalization

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes the tool as a read-like analysis (finds, shows, recommends), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects. The description adds some behavioral context (output types) but falls short of complete transparency for a tool that likely only reads data.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by outlining the output elements: impressions split, severity levels, and a recommendation. However, it does not specify the exact structure or whether the output is a list of items. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage notes for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific function: detecting keyword cannibalization. It explains what the tool does: identifies queries where multiple pages compete, and details the outputs (impressions split, severity levels, recommendation). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_queries and rank_changes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (page_queries, rank_changes). While the name and description imply it's for detecting cannibalization, there is no direct comparison or exclusion of alternatives. This leaves the agent without clear direction on selection.

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