grain_ctr_benchmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level operation and classification categories, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, update frequency, classification thresholds, or whether the tool returns raw numbers alongside classifications.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and then the classification detail. Every sentence is meaningful.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain output format more thoroughly. It mentions classification categories but not how results are organized (e.g., list of pages grouped by position, or aggregate). It also omits that siteUrl is required (though schema covers it). Somewhat incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters (siteUrl, days, minImpressions, limit). The description adds context about per-page and by-position comparison, but does not clarify how these relate to parameters (e.g., position is not a parameter, possibly an output dimension). No additional parameter-specific meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: compare actual CTR per page against industry benchmarks by position and classify results. It uses specific verbs (compare, classifies) and resource (CTR per page, industry benchmarks, position). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analytics_top_pages or seo_low_ctr_opportunities by focusing on benchmarking rather than listing top pages or identifying opportunities.

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 implies usage for CTR benchmarking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., seo_low_ctr_opportunities or analytics_content_performance). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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