gsc_detect_content_decay

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that it compares two periods and focuses on declining metrics, but it does not disclose how decline is computed, whether both periods are user-defined, or what the output structure is. Minimal extra behavioral context is provided.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While it is concise, it omits necessary detail, but for the purpose it serves, the brevity is acceptable.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not clarify required inputs, how periods are formatted, what 'declining' means, or what results look like. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity, despite annotations covering safety.

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 11% (only siteUrl has a description). The description only vaguely references 'two periods' and does not explain key parameters like currentStartDate, previousStartDate, type, maxRows, or minimumPreviousClicks. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's function: finding pages with declining clicks and impressions between two periods. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on declining metrics differentiates it from generic analytics tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies a use case (identifying content decay) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like gsc_compare_periods or gsc_diagnose_traffic_drop. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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