compare_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return structure, default compare_type, and parameter behaviors (e.g., topic focus, platform filter), but does not mention edge cases like invalid periods or empty results. This is solid but not exhaustive.

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 long but well-structured with headers, bullet points, and examples. Every section (summary, use cases, args, returns, examples) contributes necessary information for a complex multi-mode tool, avoiding redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple compare types, optional nested objects) and lack of annotations, the description provides a comprehensive picture: parameter formats, compare modes, return shape, and practical examples. It is fully self-contained.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: period1/period2 formats and presets, topic, compare_type with its values, platforms list, and top_n default. It adds meaning far beyond the loose schema types, including concrete examples.

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 states a specific verb ('比较') and resource ('两个时间段的新闻数据'), and clearly distinguishes its comparative function from sibling tools that retrieve single-period or trend-specific data. The scope is well-defined.

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 '使用场景' section provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., week-over-week comparison, topic heat analysis, platform activity changes). However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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