striking_distance

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: potential_clicks is defined as estimated extra clicks at position 5, and spelling variants are merged before querying. These are real preprocessing/semantic details beyond the structured fields, though filtering and result-shaping behavior remain unexplained.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core scoping constraint (position range) front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 13-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage the definition leaves most parameter behavior uncovered. It is adequate for understanding purpose and a couple of key behaviors, not for calling the tool precisely.

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?

With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load but only incidentally touches two of them ('default positions 8–20' for min/max_position, 'real demand' for min_impressions). The other ten parameters (days, limit, source, dates, max_rows, with_pages, search_type, query_filter, site_url) are undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('queries ranking just off page one, default positions 8–20') with the opportunity-seeking framing. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings like low_ctr_opportunities or find_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 quickest wins' implies the intent (opportunity discovery) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many sibling analytics tools. Usage is left to inference.

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