find_cannibalization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output semantics beyond that: the report identifies the page that wins the clicks, implying a comparative winner-per-query result rather than a raw list. It does not discuss pagination or result size limits, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and result, the second gives the trigger condition, the third dispatches to two siblings. Front-loaded with the core action and zero 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape; it does so at a functional level ('name the page that wins the clicks'). It does not detail the full result structure or how many cannibalizing queries are returned, which is a modest gap for a read-only analysis tool.

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 100%, including detailed semantics for siteUrl and the minPageImpressions low-volume rule, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: detects query cannibalization where multiple pages of a property rank for the same query, and reports which page wins clicks. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_top_pages or find_content_gaps without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering user question ('whether their own pages compete for the same query') and routes to two specific alternatives with their own conditions: find_content_gaps for wrong-page landings and get_top_pages for a plain ranking. Nothing is left to inference.

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