quick_wins

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 transparently explains the opportunity score formula and gives caveats about not speculating. However, it does not disclose if the tool is read-only or any authentication requirements, which is acceptable for a query tool.

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 concise at five sentences, front-loaded with purpose and formula, followed by an important usage note. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at return structure (queries with opportunity scores) but lacks details on fields, sorting, or pagination. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete, especially covering parameter roles.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter (site_url, days, min_impressions, top_n). The description focuses entirely on output semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set input parameters.

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 queries queries ranking 4-15 with highest lift opportunity and explains the scoring formula. While it distinguishes the tool's purpose, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'ctr_opportunities' 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 includes an IMPORTANT note restricting use of data, which provides some guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving the usage context implicit.

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