grain_content_decay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm (3 windows, monotonic decline) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or what happens with insufficient data. It is not misleading but lacks completeness.

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?

Two concise sentences, clearly front-loaded with purpose and key constraint. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple analytical tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the detection logic. However, it does not specify return format or handle edge cases, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds some context for minClicks and limit but largely reiterates what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool detects pages with consistent traffic decline over three consecutive 30-day windows with strict monotonic decline. Distinguishes from sibling tools like grain_traffic_drops which likely detect broader traffic drops.

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?

Implied usage for detecting specific decline patterns but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grain_traffic_drops or analytics_trends. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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