gsc_declining_queries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how 'losing clicks/impressions over time' is determined (e.g., time window, thresholds, calculation method), nor does it mention any permissions, limitations, or output format. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it omits potentially useful context like time range parameters, but given its brevity, it remains efficient and structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description provides only the basic idea. It lacks details about how 'over time' is defined, what the output includes (e.g., query names, metrics, change percentages), and how it relates to sibling tools. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and response.

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 input schema has one parameter (site_id) with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond its existing 'Site ID' description, but since the schema already fully documents it, no further compensation is needed.

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's purpose: 'Get GSC queries losing clicks/impressions over time.' It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'GSC queries' with a distinguishing qualifier ('losing clicks/impressions over time') that separates it from siblings like gsc_growing_queries and gsc_queries.

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 usage for identifying declining queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsc_queries or gsc_growing_queries. No when/when-not guidance or alternative mentions are provided, so it relies on the user to infer from the name and description.

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