find_quick_win_keywords

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses filtering logic (position 11-30, meaningful impressions) and sorting formula (impressions ÷ position), which is valuable behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention auth/rate limit constraints, which are relevant for a Search Console 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the use case. No fluff or repetition.

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 could have described the return format, but it states it returns 'keywords' which is sufficient for the agent's decision. It covers the main filtering and sorting behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete, though not exhaustive.

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 only 20% (only site_id described). The description compensates by explaining the purpose of position_min, position_max, and min_impressions through the 'quick win' criteria and mentions the sorting formula. It does not explain 'limit' directly, but its meaning is implied by 'sorted' results. The site_id is adequately described in the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states it returns keywords the caller's site ranks for in Search Console, filtered to positions 11-30 with meaningful impressions, and sorted by opportunity score. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on prospects, backlinks, and emails.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use to answer what should I write about next?' This gives clear context for when to invoke. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but sibling tools are obviously different, so the context is sufficient.

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