seo_opportunity_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only restates the purpose. It does not explain how the two candidate lists are combined (union, intersection, ranking), what data sources are required (GSC and GA4), whether it is read-only, or the output format. This is a significant gap for a report tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core value proposition ('compact SEO opportunity report') and then specifies the data sources included. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 (5 parameters, two implied data sources, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not clarify output structure, rowLimit behavior, or whether both siteUrl and property are required. An agent could not safely call this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact (e.g., that both siteUrl and property are needed for combined data). Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but it does not elevate beyond that.

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 produces a 'compact SEO opportunity report' that combines two candidate types (high-impression/low-CTR and low-engagement), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual types. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'generates', 'returns'), so it stops short of a fully specific action statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus calling the individual sibling tools (e.g., find_high_impression_low_ctr_pages or find_pages_with_clicks_but_low_engagement). The description does not mention trade-offs, prerequisites, or alternative workflows, leaving the agent to infer context.

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