gsc_content_decay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the comparison logic, the prior-traffic eligibility rule, and the min_prev_clicks filtering behavior. However, it never states that this is a read-only analysis or describes what the returned set contains beyond 'pages that lost traffic.'

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, and the second paragraph adds meaningful rationale without bloat. The Args section covers only one of four parameters, which prevents a perfect structure score.

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-oriented analytics tool with an output schema, the description explains the essential decay logic and min_prev_clicks threshold. It leaves gaps around how days defines the comparison window, site_url selection, and how this differs from sibling GSC tools, making it adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but only min_prev_clicks is documented. days, limit, and site_url, including the meaning of a null site_url, are left to inference from names and defaults.

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 resource and metric: pages that lost the most traffic in a previous equal-length period. This clearly communicates the tool's purpose and is distinct enough from siblings like gsc_top_pages or gsc_search_analytics, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 rationale 'catches decaying content early, while it still has enough authority that a refresh works' gives implied usage context for identifying content to refresh. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to sibling tools like gsc_compare_periods as alternatives.

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