analyze_content_decay

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals sorting order (worst decliners first) but does not mention nondestructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. The description adds some context (comparison logic) but leaves gaps.

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 long with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes the key sorting behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core function, sorting, and implied use case. With only one required parameter and a clear purpose, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention required data sources or assumptions (e.g., GSC access) to be fully self-contained.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal additional meaning. It mentions the comparison periods (recent vs prior) but does not elaborate on how recent_days and compare_days map to those periods. The sorting note is present but applies to output, not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compares recent vs prior periods for every page and flags declining traffic, with results sorted by worst decliners first. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_page_performance or get_top_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 implies use for analyzing content decay but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page_performance or find_cannibalization. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it's adequate but not proactive.

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