Find SEO Opportunities

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it compares a recent 7-day window to 28 days prior, and it explicitly instructs the agent to rely only on returned data, report exact numbers, and avoid speculation. This goes beyond the structural annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and opportunity categories, then adds the comparison window and usage constraints. It is slightly verbose with the IMPORTANT clause, but every sentence carries operational value and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid understanding of what the tool does, the data window it uses, and how the agent should handle results. It does not describe the response shape or clarify the searchType parameter, but the agent instructions to avoid speculation partially compensate for the missing output details.

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?

The schema documents three of four parameters with descriptions, so baseline semantic coverage is already solid. The description enriches the 'type' semantics by explaining what each opportunity category means (e.g., positions 5-20 with high impressions but low CTR), but it does not clarify searchType, which has no schema description.

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 function: automatically identify SEO opportunities across three named categories (quick wins, declining content, emerging queries). It is specific about the resource and verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like diagnose_traffic_drops or content_decay.

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 when to use the tool by naming the opportunity types and the 7-day vs 28-day comparison window. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as compare_periods or diagnose_traffic_drops, nor does it give exclusions.

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