content_movers

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining the result categories (decayed, rising, lost, new) and the comparison modes. It does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, but with safety annotations present this is a reasonable level of detail.

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-loads the core purpose. The subsequent lines efficiently define compare_to values and output categories. It wastes little space, though it could be organized slightly more clearly for an agent scanning parameter semantics.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter-level documentation in the description. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description does not sufficiently explain how to invoke the tool or how it differs from sibling analytics tools. It is incomplete for a parameter-heavy, open-world reporting operation.

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% and there are 12 parameters, so the description carries a heavy compensation burden. It explains compare_to options (which the schema does not enumerate) and hints at dimension via 'Pages (or queries)', but leaves days, limit, source, max_rows, start_date, end_date, search_type, and min_previous_clicks entirely unexplained. The coverage is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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?

States a specific report: pages or queries whose clicks moved by at least a threshold versus an earlier period. The added category definitions (decayed, rising, lost, new) clarify what the output represents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as compare_periods, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Provides the available compare_to modes and their meanings, which helps an agent choose how to compare periods. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_periods, striking_distance, or low_ctr_opportunities. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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