opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: the exact position band (8–20), ranking by impressions, the min_impressions constraint applying to both periods, and the edge-case behavior when low_ctr is empty (low_ctr_note and low_ctr_band_counts). It doesn't cover limits, pagination, or performance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then each category and its caveat in dense but purposeful clauses; every sentence carries information. The single run-on sentence structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted form would be.

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, the description does well to enumerate the returned item categories and the low_ctr edge-case fields. However, for a nine-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, it leaves the agent guessing about limit semantics, device/country filtering, and default values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for nine parameters. It explains min_impressions (both periods), search_type limitations (Discover/News), and defers date params to search_queries' rules, but leaves limit, device, and country completely unexplained.

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+resource with full detail: it returns prioritized 'what to work on next' items across four named opportunity categories (striking distance, lost clicks, position drops, low CTR). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_queries, which return raw rows rather than curated opportunities.

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?

'What to work on next for a site' frames the prioritization use case, and the note that Discover and Google News have no query rows tells the agent when this tool won't help. It does not explicitly say when to prefer search_queries or page_queries instead, so alternatives are implied rather than named.

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