insights_compare_periods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only explains the date range parameter format and does not describe the return format, data scope, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer what 'insights' means operationally or what the output looks like.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' section is focused and adds necessary detail about the period structure. It is efficient and every part has value, though it could be slightly more organized.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only addresses the period parameters, leaving the meaning of entity_id, level, fields, and the overall behavior unclear. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaningful structure for period_a and period_b (the 'since'/'until' format with YYYY-MM-DD), which is not present in the schema. However, it does not explain entity_id, level, or fields, which remain completely unspecified. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial explanation is helpful but insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('insights') with a clear scope ('between two date ranges side-by-side'). This distinguishes it from sibling insights tools like insights_get or insights_get_account_summary, which don't focus on period comparison.

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 intended use case (comparing two date ranges) is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over other insights tools, nor are any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The usage is clear from context but not explicitly stated.

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