content_decay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral rule that the decline must occur in every consecutive period, but says nothing about result ordering, which period is the baseline, or what happens when the threshold is not met.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the qualifying condition, with no wasted wording. It is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic, but every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description could explain what a result entry looks like, but it does define the core selection logic well enough to call the tool correctly. With eight parameters and low schema coverage, several knobs remain undocumented in both places.

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 only 38%, so the description needs to compensate, and it only partially does: 'N consecutive periods' maps to periods and 'clicks fell' loosely to min_decline_pct, and 'pages or queries' maps to dimension. It adds no meaning for top_n, min_clicks, period_days, search_type, or the accepted site formats.

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 names the resource (pages, or queries) and the specific selection criterion (clicks fell in every one of N consecutive periods), and it distinguishes the concept from a one-off dip. An agent can tell this apart from generic drop-detection siblings such as traffic_drops, though it never names the sibling 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 'slow decay, not a one-off dip' framing implies when this tool is the right choice, but no alternative tool is named and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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