Striking-distance keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the computation is 'client-side from search analytics' (which may affect freshness or performance expectations) and that results are sorted by impressions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the 'SEO goldmine view' hook, then quickly moves to specific criteria and behavior. All three sentences contribute meaning: the first introduces the purpose, the second elaborates on its value, the third explains the computation and order. It could be slightly tighter, but it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

For a read-only analytics tool with 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it states what the tool returns (queries in a position band, sorted by impressions), the client-side computation, and the optimization use case. Combined with rich schema descriptions and safe-read annotations, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like pagination behavior are not critical for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal semantic value by explaining the concept of 'striking distance' (position 8-25) and 'enough impressions', which maps to min_impressions, but it does not introduce any new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning queries in a specific 'striking-distance' position range (8-25) that are worth optimizing. It uses specific framing ('SEO goldmine view') and distinguishes this from the broader sibling gsc_search_analytics by focusing on a narrow, actionable subset. The verb is implied but unambiguous ('returns queries sorted by impressions').

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 when to use this tool (when looking for quick wins near page one, where a small content tweak could improve rankings). It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics. However, the specialized angle is clear enough for an AI to select it for striking-distance optimization use cases.

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