cannibalization_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool finds but omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there is no mention of side effects or resource consumption.

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 sentence makes the description concise and easy to scan. However, it packs minimal information; additional structured context (e.g., parameter hints) is missing but the length is appropriate for a straightforward tool.

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 7 parameters, 57% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how results are returned, what sorting applies, or how thresholds like minQueryImpressions affect output, leaving important gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 57%, but the tool description adds no parameter-level insight beyond the schema. Key parameters like 'minQueryImpressions' and 'minPages' are not explained in context, and the description does not compensate for the 43% of parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: finding queries where multiple pages compete, splitting impressions or clicks. The verb 'find' and resource 'queries with competing pages' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'page_query_matrix' by focusing on cannibalization, though the term 'compete' lacks precise definition.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'page_query_matrix' or 'query_page_fit'. No example scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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