SEO opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior: the 5000-row processing cap, the exact low_ctr threshold formula min(5%, max(1%, avg*0.75)), and the web-search-type-only restriction. It does not mention pagination or return shape, keeping it from a 5.

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-loads the general capability, then spends exactly one clause per kind, then closes with the applicability constraint. No filler, no repetition of structured fields.

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 14-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, kind semantics, scoping, and constraints well. It omits any hint of the return shape or the has_more pagination contract (only implied in the schema), which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the schema descriptions are already rich, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema, notably the low_ctr threshold formula and the "cheapest wins" framing for striking_distance that help the agent choose a kind and interpret bounds.

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 ("Ready-made opportunity analyses") and immediately enumerates the four analysis kinds with concrete definitions, so an agent can tell exactly what it produces versus the sibling query/question-queries tools. The "top-5000 rows of a window" scope further pins down the output.

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?

Each kind carries implicit routing guidance (e.g. striking_distance noted as "the cheapest wins"), and the "Web search type only" constraint is an explicit applicability rule. It never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.

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