gsc_traffic_drops

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral rules: base analysis only on returned data, report exact numbers, avoid speculation, and clearly state when data is insufficient. It also mandates artifact-based visualization with specific formatting. This goes beyond schema and gives the agent clear execution boundaries.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then includes necessary IMPORTANT and PRESENTATION sections. While the presentation section is detailed, it earns its place by defining output format. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Make the output visually scannable') could be trimmed, but it's well-organized.

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 a query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough. It explains the tool's purpose, comparative methodology, diagnostic categories, analysis constraints, and presentation requirements. It doesn't specify the return data structure, but for a GSC query tool this is acceptable.

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% (both days and dataset are described). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find pages that lost the most traffic recently.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_content_decay by focusing on traffic drop diagnosis (ranking loss, CTR collapse, demand decline).

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 the tool is for analyzing recent traffic drops by comparing current vs prior period. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary cases, but the context is unambiguous. Sibling names like gsc_anomalies suggest overlap, but no direct comparison is made.

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