gsc_content_decay

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful operational context: 'One query per month runs in parallel,' which tells an agent the call may be partitioned and slower, and explains why it catches decay that period comparisons miss.

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?

Three short sentences cover the problem statement, the reason a dedicated tool is needed, and the parallel-query behavior with no filler. The rationale is front-loaded before the operational note.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description explains the key conceptual model and runtime behavior without needing to repeat parameter documentation. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the type of result returned, but the output schema fills that gap.

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 89%, so parameters like months, date_to, row_limit, and site_url already carry meaning. The description adds no direct parameter syntax or examples beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 phrase 'Pages sliding down month after month' communicates the tool's focus on gradual multi-month decay, and the note that period comparison misses it differentiates this from a generic month-over-month diff. It lacks an explicit verb like 'detect' or 'return,' so it stops short of a crisp statement.

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 when to use the tool: for slow declines that a period comparison would hide. It does not name sibling tools or state an explicit when-not-to-use, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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