find_quick_wins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by defining the heuristics that make something a 'quick win,' which is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 with zero waste, front-loaded on the core purpose, then the usage trigger, then the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place and the structure leads with what the tool does.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with strong annotations and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete. With no output schema, it could hint at return shape, but the criteria for qualification and the sibling routing give the agent enough to call it 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 100% and each of the four parameters (period, siteUrl, searchType, minImpressions) is documented in the schema, including enum values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 ('Find') and resource ('query and page pairs') and defines the three criteria that qualify (rank well but under-clicked, just off page one, small position push). It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_ctr_opportunities and find_declining_content, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks where search traffic is being left on the table') plus named alternatives with their selecting conditions: find_ctr_opportunities for page-level CTR gaps and find_declining_content for already-falling traffic. 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.