gsc_find_opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the filtering criteria, but it also does not contradict the annotations and provides sufficient context for a read-only analytic tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and target criteria, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the one-sentence description is somewhat thin. It explains the core purpose but does not convey what a returned opportunity set looks like, how thresholds interact, or when results might be empty. The rich schema and annotations help, but the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 only 8%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the core semantic parameters: 'high-impression' maps to minimumImpressions, 'low-CTR' to maximumCtr/targetCtr, and 'ranking-position range' to minimumPosition/maximumPosition. However, it does not explain other important parameters like groupBy, filters, limit, or date range, leaving gaps for a 12-parameter tool.

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' and clearly identifies the resource: high-impression, low-CTR queries or pages within a ranking-position range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_query_queries or gsc_top_pages by focusing on opportunity detection rather than generic reporting.

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?

The description conveys a clear use case: discovering optimization opportunities (high impressions but low CTR) within a specified position band. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this over generic query/page tools.

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