find_cannibalization

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, open-world safety profile, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: spelling variants of a query are merged before comparison, and results are ranked by wasted impressions. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the deduplication rule, then the min_share definition — no filler. The mid-sentence line breaks and the guillemet example add minor noise but the sizing is appropriate.

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 12-parameter tool, this is only partially complete: the purpose and one key parameter are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, most tunable parameters and any usage routing are absent, leaving an agent unable to reason about level, source, or date-window behavior.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them — yet it clarifies only min_share. days, level, source, search_type, limit, max_rows, query_filter, min_impressions, and the date fields are all left undocumented, and level/source/search_type have no enum hints anywhere.

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?

States a specific analytical operation on a named SEO concept: pages competing on the same query, ranked by impressions lost to the non-best page. This is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like query_variants, striking_distance, or queries_for_page.

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 explains what the output means but never says when to reach for this tool versus sibling diagnostics (e.g., query_variants for spelling issues, striking_distance for ranking opportunities). No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving routing to inference.

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