gsc_query_opportunities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details: sorting by impressions descending and rationale for CTR lift, which is valuable beyond annotations. 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 waste, front-loaded with purpose. Every word contributes value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (rows sorted by impressions) and rationale. It covers filtering criteria (position, CTR, impressions min) but omits mention of limit parameter or pagination. Overall fairly complete for the complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, only references 'top N positions' and 'below-target CTR' which align with existing parameter descriptions. 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 tool identifies queries ranking in top positions with below-target CTR for optimization, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gsc_query_gaps (queries not ranking) and gsc_top_queries (all top queries, no CTR filter).

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 use for title/meta-description optimization candidates, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, leaving some implicit guidance.

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