ctr_opportunities

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose without revealing any side effects, authorization needs, or constraints (e.g., whether it is read-only, if results are cached, or if it modifies data).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the 'expected CTR curve' concept, how parameters interact, or what the returned data looks like. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior without additional context.

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 coverage is 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how parameters like 'minImpressions' or 'maxPosition' influence the expected CTR curve calculation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('queries and pages'), and a distinct context ('CTR below expected CTR curve for current average position'), making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it differs from siblings like 'top_queries' or 'performance_overview'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'quick_wins' or 'top_pages'. The description implies a CTR analysis use case but does not state when it is or is not appropriate.

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