traffic_drops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds crucial behavioral guardrails: mandates analysis based solely on returned data, prohibits speculative causes, requires admitting insufficient data, and prescribes a rich, interactive presentation format. These are substantial additions beyond mere tool purpose and significantly shape agent behavior.

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 well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then using 'IMPORTANT' and 'PRESENTATION' sections to convey critical usage rules. It is longer than minimal but each section adds actionable value. Slight verbosity in the presentation details prevents a 5.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, what kind of output to expect (numbers and diagnoses), and how to present results. It does not specify exact output fields, but the guidance to 'report exact numbers' and the diagnostic categories give a sufficient picture.

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 already fully documents the only parameter ('days') with a description and default value. The tool description only refers to 'period' without adding new details or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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 action and resource: 'Find pages that lost the most traffic recently.' It further clarifies the comparative and diagnostic nature ('Compares current period vs prior period and diagnoses whether each drop is a ranking loss, CTR collapse, or demand decline'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like content_decay or ctr_opportunities.

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 to use the tool: to identify traffic drops and understand their causes. It also provides strong post-invocation guidance (e.g., base analysis only on returned data, report exact numbers). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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