seo_gap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the default return format (short detail) and explains the meaning of each detail level ('short', 'medium', 'full'). It does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free read behavior, but for a gap-analysis tool this is reasonably safe to infer.

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 well-structured sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second explains the detail parameter without wasted words. Ideal length and front-loading.

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?

The tool has only 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully covers the tool's behavior, return variants, and defaults. There is no obvious missing information for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. While the schema documents the detail enum as 'verbosity', the description clarifies exactly what each value returns (e.g., 'medium' gives searchVolume, difficulty, competitorDomains), which is essential for choosing the right level.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Identify content gaps'—topics competitors cover but the brand doesn't. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_competitor or competitor_analyze, which focus on competitor data rather than gap analysis.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and how to control output verbosity via the detail parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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