content_decay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the algorithmic filter (monotonic decline over 3 windows, threshold). It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The logic is fairly transparent but lacks some behavioral details.

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 brief and to the point: first sentence states purpose, second elaborates on criteria, third gives an important usage warning. No fluff. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core logic and usage caveats. However, it does not explain the output format, pagination, or error cases. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but could be more 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 has 3 parameters (site_url, top_n, min_clicks_p3) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'clicks_p3 >= threshold' but does not explicitly map threshold to min_clicks_p3 or explain top_n. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning.

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 finds pages with monotonic decline across 3 consecutive 30-day windows, indicating real content decay. It explains the filtering criteria, distinguishing it from random dips. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'find', and could be more direct.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: to detect genuine content decay, not single-week dips. It includes a warning against speculation and extrapolation, guiding proper usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with sibling tools like traffic_drops.

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