ctr_gaps

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only analytical nature ('Find high-impression queries...') but does not state whether it is read-only or if it requires specific permissions. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but there is no warning about rate limits or potential data freshness issues.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (Find high-impression queries or pages) and immediately states the specific use case. There is no wasted wording; it is efficient and to the point.

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 analytical complexity, an output schema that covers the result, and full schema parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention default behaviors (like date range or minImpressions) but those are in the schema. The only minor gap is lack of explicit relation to peers or how the gap is computed, but that may be covered by the output schema.

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 100%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the dimension of query vs page. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents each parameter.

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's purpose: identifying high-impression queries or pages with CTR gaps relative to peers at the same position, explicitly for snippet rewrite prioritization. It distinguishes this from generic analytics tools like search_analytics by focusing on CTR gaps and the specific use case.

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?

The description implies use for snippet rewrite prioritization but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. Siblings like search_analytics could also provide CTR data, but no guidance is given on when to choose this tool over them. The context is clear enough for a knowledgeable agent.

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