seo_primitive_is_cannibalized

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it 'checks' which suggests read-only, but it does not explain what the output looks like, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The statement is too minimal.

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, short sentence that is efficient and gets to the point. The prefix 'primitive:' provides context. It is well-structured with no wasted words.

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 has 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not address the return value, the algorithm's behavior, or prerequisites. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 25% (only 'query' and 'engine' have descriptions). The description says it uses 'metrics' but does not explain the role of each parameter (position, impressions, clicks). It does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 checks if two pages are competing for a query using metrics. It is specific about the inputs (query, two pages' metrics) and the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'seo_cannibalization' tool, which might be a more comprehensive version.

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 when to use: when you have two pages and want to check competition for a specific query. It does not provide when-not or alternatives, but the context is moderately clear.

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