find_declining_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the comparison semantics (current vs previous period), but says nothing about how the minClicksInPrevious threshold affects results or how ties/limited rows are handled. With annotations doing heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, trigger, then disambiguation. The core action is front-loaded before the sibling routing.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the shape of the result (ranked pages and queries that lost clicks) and the comparison basis. Fully covered parameters and annotations mean the only real gap is threshold/limit behavior, which is minor.

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 100% and both enums (period, searchType) are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb (compare) plus resource (current vs previous Search Console period) and the exact ranking output (pages and queries that lost clicks). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_queries or compare_periods, which don't frame the result as a decline ranking.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use when the user asks what stopped getting traffic or what dropped recently") and routes two alternatives by condition: find_quick_wins for under-clicked but not declining, weekly_seo_report for a full digest. Nothing is left to inference.

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