find_keyword_cannibalization

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully defines the trigger condition (2+ pages competing on one query) and the accepted input format (CSV/TSV with Query and Page columns, optional clicks/impressions/position), but says nothing about what analysis is returned or how competing pages are reported.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently packs the input format and column requirements. Dense but readable, with the core purpose stated first.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to carry more. It covers the input contract well but omits any indication of the return shape (e.g., list of cannibalized queries with competing URLs) and leaves min_impressions undefined, so it is only minimally complete for invocation.

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 50%: gsc_csv is documented and the description usefully expands it with required vs. optional columns and accepted delimiters. However, min_impressions is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the second parameter's meaning and default behavior remain unclear.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') plus a precisely defined resource ('queries where 2+ of your pages compete'), which is a distinct concept from the sibling tools (clustering, intent classification, title/meta checks). An agent can identify the output concept immediately. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from any named sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Use context is implied by the required input ('from a Google Search Console export') — an agent infers you need GSC data to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to/away from siblings like cluster_keywords or classify_search_intent.

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