cannibalization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior by instructing to use only returned data, but does not explicitly state it is safe, nor does it mention authorization needs, rate limits, or output format.

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 two sentences with a critical note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the note earns its place by preventing misuse. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the output format, how to interpret results, or detailed usage. The note is helpful but insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and handle the tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions site_url and date_range in the note, but does not describe days, min_impressions, or top_n. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies queries where multiple pages compete. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like content_decay or traffic_drops.

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 IMPORTANT note provides guidance on using only returned data and citing site_url + date_range, which gives context for reporting. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or preconditions.

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