seo_cannibalization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only states the function without explaining how it works (e.g., it requires Google Search Console access, returns a list of issues, defines cannibalization based on ranking overlaps, or is read-only). For a tool with no annotation safeguards, this is insufficient.

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, direct and without unnecessary words. However, it is only 10 words and could be more structured with additional context. It earns a 4 because it is concise but not overly, and the front-loading is good.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., list of cannibalization issues with pages and queries). It does not. Also, given 5 parameters and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it confirms the concept of cannibalization but doesn't clarify parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 detects keyword cannibalization, which is multiple pages competing for the same query. It uses a specific verb 'detect' and resource 'keyword cannibalization'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'seo_primitive_is_cannibalized' (which checks a specific page) or 'bing_seo_cannibalization' (for Bing), so it gets a 4 instead of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for a specific page check use 'seo_primitive_is_cannibalized', for Bing use 'bing_seo_cannibalization'). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. This is a significant gap.

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