find_content_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what gaps are surfaced but says nothing about scoping limits, ordering, result volume, or how period/siteUrl constraints affect findings. Adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 tight sentences: what it finds, when to use it, and which siblings cover adjacent jobs. No filler and the core capability is front-loaded.

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 carries the return-value burden, and enumerating the three gap types gives the agent a reasonable expectation of results. Minor gap: it doesn't note that findings are derived from Search Console data over the selected period, which would help set expectations.

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% with enum values and defaults already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or interpretation guidance beyond the schema; minImpressions semantics such as what counts as 'high impression' are not clarified.

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 (Find) and resource (content gaps), then enumerates the three concrete gap categories it detects: misrouted queries, high-impression zero-click queries, and uncovered topics. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_cannibalization or find_what_to_build_next.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks what content is missing') and routes to two named alternatives with their own conditions: find_what_to_build_next for intent grouping and find_cannibalization when pages compete for one query. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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