query_cannibalization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any data limits, or the nature of the results beyond finding queries. It lacks explicit statements about what the tool does not do or any side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and avoids redundancy. It is concise and every word contributes to the definition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value documentation is not required. However, given the complexity of cannibalization analysis, the description is minimal and does not explain the conceptual basis (e.g., how queries are attributed to multiple pages) or any filtering logic beyond what schema parameters imply. It is adequate but not rich.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, formats, or relationships beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'queries served by multiple pages', with an explicit purpose ('prioritize consolidation and internal-linking decisions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_analytics or ctr_gaps by focusing on multi-page cannibalization.

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 its use case (cannibalization analysis) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like ctr_gaps or search_opportunities. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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