content_opportunities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it is read-only, fuses multiple signals into a transparent opportunity score, flags cannibalization, and reports click upside and score components. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, the second clarifies limitations. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 adequately describes the return value ('click upside plus the score's components'). It covers input parameters implicitly and explains the tool's scope and limitations, making it complete for an agent to decide usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description provides no additional parameter-specific details beyond summarizing the overall purpose. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('data-grounded content/blog topics from your own Search Console data'), and clearly distinguishes itself by stating it 'does not do cold-start keyword research' and focuses on existing demand, differentiating from sibling tools like keyword_universe.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'prioritize demand you already have'. Also clearly states what it does not do: cold-start keyword research, writing content, or guaranteeing ranking. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the context signals list many sibling tools, and the description implies when not to use it.

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