image_content_decay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses three 30-day windows and defaults to a lower minimum click threshold. However, it does not mention any behavioral aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, what happens if data is insufficient, or any rate limits or permissions needed. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 key purpose and distinctions. While it includes important usage guidelines later, the overall length is reasonable, though the lengthy list of presentation instructions could be slightly trimmed. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient without being verbose.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description provides a fairly complete picture: what the tool does, how it differs from siblings, usage instructions, and output presentation format. It could be more complete by briefly mentioning return format or pagination, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter with full coverage (100%), so the bar is set at baseline 3. The description mentions a 'lower minimum click threshold' but does not explicitly explain the parameter 'min_period3_clicks' beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it adds marginal value to the parameter 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 begins by explicitly stating this is the 'Image-search version of content_decay,' immediately distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'content_decay.' It then describes the core functionality: analyzing three 30-day windows and flagging pages with consistent decline across all three. This provides a clear, specific verb+resource combination that differentiates from similar tools.

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 detailed usage context, including that the tool defaults to a lower minimum click threshold than the web equivalent due to lower click volumes in image search. It also includes explicit instructions on how to use the results: 'Base your analysis ONLY on the data returned.' and 'If the data does not contain enough information to answer a question, say so clearly rather than guessing.' These guidelines are comprehensive and help the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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