cannibalization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing on top of them — no indication of how results are computed, what thresholds mean, or what the output looks like. With zero value added beyond structured data and a 6-parameter surface, this is a real gap.

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?

It is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is only a fragment with no sentence structure and nothing front-loaded beyond a category label.

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?

A six-parameter analytical tool with no output schema and no descriptions anywhere needs the description to carry meaning; instead it offers four words. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly — what it returns, what the filters do, when to prefer it over siblings — is present.

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 0% for six parameters, including non-obvious ones like maxCtr (default 0.02) and minImpressions (default 100), whose filtering role is entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent to guess what these thresholds filter.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus a category label ('Search Console insight'). It never states a verb or what the tool actually does (e.g., 'find queries where multiple pages compete for the same keyword'), so an agent must infer cannibalization semantics from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this differs from siblings like striking_distance, low_ctr, or movers, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the single word 'cannibalization'.

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