Find SEO opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by defining the heuristics used (CTR far below position benchmark, rankings 8–20, multiple pages competing), but says nothing about data freshness, result caps, or how the returned set is ranked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the payoff ("Surfaces quick wins") and then lists the three kinds with inline labels. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes what the results contain by defining the three opportunity categories. Combined with schema-level date and siteUrl descriptions, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though threshold behavior (minImpressions, top) remains unexplained.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the three kinds enum values in meaningful terms and implies the query/page distinction behind lowCtrBy, but top, minImpressions, and the date range receive no explanation beyond bare schema defaults.

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 names a specific verb ("surfaces") and a specific resource (SEO opportunities), then enumerates the three concrete analysis types it produces. That enumeration makes it easy to distinguish from raw reporting siblings like search_analytics or page_performance, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explaining what each kind (low_ctr, striking_distance, cannibalization) captures implicitly guides which values to request, but the description never states when to reach for this tool over siblings, nor any prerequisites such as needing a GSC property resolved via list_sites first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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