topic_cluster_map

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: classification into quadrants, cannibalization flagging, and the limitation that GSC hides ~47% of queries. This helps the agent understand the tool's constraints and outputs.

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 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential details without excessive fluff. Slightly verbose with 'Free, GSC-only' but overall 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 the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers input definition, processing logic, output content (quadrants, create queries), and limitations (GSC data gaps). It is fairly complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%. The description does not add new per-parameter details but provides overall context on how parameters relate (e.g., cluster_path vs pillar_url). 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 states the tool maps a content cluster and surfaces missing subtopics, with specific actions and outputs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings focused on general GSC analysis or performance measurement.

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 (for mapping a content cluster using your own Search Console data) and how to define the cluster (via cluster_path or pillar_url). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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