striking_distance

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the default position window of 5-20, the ordering by 'impressions being left on the table,' and the type of page returned. It could disclose the response format, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 first two sentences are reasonably efficient and front-load the key behavior and use case. The third sentence ('The single most useful report...') is subjective marketing and does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The first sentence also has a grammatical stumble that slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The tool has seven parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains neither the return shape nor the effect of days, limit, and account. An agent could make a default call with only site, but would lack crucial context about pagination, result contents, and how the ordering is computed. This is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 low (~43%), with only site and min_impressions explained in the schema. The description contributes only the default position range and ordering concept; it does not clarify days, limit, account, min_position, or max_position semantics beyond what the schema already implies. Since the schema cannot carry the burden and the description does not compensate, this is a clear gap.

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 identifies a specific report: pages/queries of a Search Console property already ranking between positions 5 and 20, ordered by impression opportunity. This is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like top_queries or query_search_analytics. The first sentence is slightly awkward ('a property already ranks for'), but the resource and purpose are identifiable.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is valuable: when a page already ranks near page one and a title rewrite or added content depth can capture more traffic. It explains why these opportunities are actionable because the ranking work is already done. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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