content_decay

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It warns against speculation, instructs the agent to report exact numbers and say when data is insufficient, mandates a dashboard-style artifact presentation, and explains the nuanced meaning of the position metric including its sparse-data limitations.

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 long but each section earns its place: detection criterion, analysis discipline, presentation requirements, and position interpretation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds operational guidance, though the presentation and position paragraphs could arguably be trimmed without losing key meaning.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides substantial guidance on how to interpret and present results. It explains position semantics and data limitations, but it does not enumerate the other expected result fields or metrics an agent should expect to receive, leaving minor ambiguity about the exact return shape.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter-level ambiguity exists.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Find pages that are slowly dying with consistent traffic decline over three consecutive 30-day periods.' It clearly distinguishes content decay from related traffic analyses by defining the multi-period threshold, making it easy for an agent to recognize when this tool applies.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, such as detecting sustained decline rather than single-month noise. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over siblings like traffic_drops or image_content_decay, and it offers no exclusion guidance or alternative recommendations.

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