seo_cannibalization

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles partial data. The description only states the core function, leaving significant unknowns.

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 sentence that conveys the core idea efficiently, but it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., separating purpose from details). It is concise, earning a high score, yet slightly underpowered for a tool with five parameters and a complex concept.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of cannibalized queries and pages). It does not. The parameters (like max issues and min impressions) imply configurable detection thresholds, but no context is provided. This leaves the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's 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 100%, so each parameter (days, limit, engine, siteUrl, minImpressions) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra context or clarification about how these parameters influence the analysis. A baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting keyword cannibalization (multiple pages competing for the same query). It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and identifies the resource ('keyword cannibalization'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'bing_seo_cannibalization' which targets Bing, leaving ambiguity about the default search engine.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or the existence of the 'bing_seo_cannibalization' sibling for Bing-specific analysis. The description lacks any contextual advice for selection.

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