gsc_compare_periods

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Only describes parameters and action, lacking transparency on tool behavior beyond the obvious.

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?

Structured as a clear docstring with a one-line purpose followed by parameter list. Efficient and front-loaded, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more concise. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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?

All 7 parameters are explained, including required ones. Purpose is clear. Output schema exists (not shown), so return details are not required. However, no mention of data boundaries or specific behavior beyond parameter descriptions. Still fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so description provides all parameter semantics. It specifies date format (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults (query, 50), country format with examples (usa, gbr), and purpose. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Compare two date periods in Google Search Console side-by-side', specifying verb, resource, and platform. This distinguishes it from sibling compare_periods tools for other platforms (ga4, bing).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implied usage from name and description, but no references to alternatives or contra-indications. Lacks clear differentiation from sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_movers_and_losers.

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