traffic_drops

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses diagnosis categories (ranking_loss, ctr_collapse, demand_decline) and a critical caveat about data lag (most recent 2-3 days incomplete). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence concisely adds valuable details about diagnosis and data lag with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The output schema exists to describe return values, so that gap is covered. However, the description omits parameter explanations and usage context, which are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly among 30+ siblings. The caveat about data lag adds value, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It completely fails to mention 'site' (required) or 'days' (optional, default 28). The agent receives no help understanding that 'days' defines the period size for comparison, leaving parameter semantics entirely to inference.

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: 'Find queries whose clicks dropped compared to the previous equally-sized period.' It specifies the verb (find), resource (queries with drops), and context (comparison period), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like seo_lost_queries by focusing on click drops with diagnosis.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seo_lost_queries or analytics_anomalies. It includes a note about data lag but does not help the agent choose among sibling tools or understand prerequisites.

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