gsc_detect_cannibalization

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level outcome and does not explain detection logic, thresholds, whether it is read-only, or what the returned results look like.

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 one focused sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it could be enriched with a brief example or note on output.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to configure the tool confidently. It does not specify return format, result interpretation, or how the detection thresholds interact.

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 only 22%, and the description does not explain how parameters like topN, minPages, minImpressions, or maxTopPageClickShare affect detection. The phrase 'multiple pages compete' loosely maps to minPages and maxTopPageClickShare, but the mapping is left implicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'detect queries where multiple pages compete for clicks/impressions.' It clearly distinguishes this from raw Search Analytics query tools and sitemap/indexation tools by focusing on cannibalization detection.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_query_search_analytics or gsc_cluster_queries. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual signals to help an agent choose this tool.

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