Content refresh candidates (decaying pages)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details: it compares two periods, uses sitemap lastmod for staleness, and returns top losing queries. It does not describe output format or pagination, but these are minor given the read-only nature.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the actionable context follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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?

For an analysis tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the selection logic well but omits details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns a list with metrics, sorting, or pagination). Still, given the read-only nature and clear purpose, an agent can reasonably infer expected output. The description is sufficient for most use cases.

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 33%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It references 'two periods' and 'sitemap lastmod', which loosely maps to the date-range and sitemap parameters, but it does not explain top, minPreviousClicks, or the default periods. The description adds some meaning but not enough for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly specifies the resource ('pages') with precise criteria (clicks/impressions dropped, not updated recently). It distinguishes itself from sibling GSC analysis tools by focusing on content refresh candidates rather than generic opportunities or CTR reports.

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 it ('best candidates for a content refresh') and even suggests follow-up actions, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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