find_what_to_build_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the grouping/clustering behavior and the intent taxonomy, but says nothing about output shape, result volume, or site/auth prerequisites. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then usage trigger, then alternatives. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or 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?

For a read-only analysis tool with four well-documented params, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the returned cluster structure, which matters slightly more since no output schema exists.

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%, so period, siteUrl, searchType and minImpressions are already fully documented with types, defaults, enums and examples. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Group Search Console queries by user intent... into topic clusters') with the intent categories enumerated. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_content_gaps and analyze_query_landscape.

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 states when to use ('Use when the user asks what content to create') and routes the agent to two named alternatives with the conditions that select them ('mismatched landing pages and zero-click queries' -> find_content_gaps; 'overall intent mix' -> analyze_query_landscape).

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