Content Decay

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful handling guidance: 'Base your analysis only on the data returned by this tool', 'Report exact numbers', and 'Do not speculate'. It also recognizes potential data insufficiency and instructs the agent to say so, which goes beyond the structured hints.

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 core definition and threshold, then adds concise usage/output behavior. Every sentence earns its place; the 'IMPORTANT' clause is compact and high-value rather than redundant.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains what it identifies, the threshold logic, and how to handle insufficient data. It does not spell out the exact response shape/metrics, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the returned pages.

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?

Input schema covers 80% of parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds a conceptual context for `months` and 'traffic decline', but does not materially explain siteUrl, rowLimit, minClicks, or searchType beyond what the schema already provides. Schema carries the parameter burden, so 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?

Description states a precise objective ('Detect content decay') with an exact operational definition ('pages with 3 or more consecutive months of traffic decline') and clarifies the threshold ('One bad month is noise'). This distinguishes it from broader siblings like diagnose_traffic_drops by focusing on sustained multi-month decline.

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 clearly frames the intended use: surface pages needing refresh before disappearing from search results, and implies this is for sustained decline rather than isolated one-month dips. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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