compare_search_periods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals some context about site_url formats and domain properties, but it does not disclose the nature of the operation (e.g., read-only), error handling, period overlap behavior, or what the comparison output represents. It focuses almost entirely on parameters rather than behavior.

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 structured as a docstring with a one-sentence summary followed by an Args list. Every line provides useful information without fluff. It is slightly long due to the number of parameters, but the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 description thoroughly documents parameters, but it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. An output schema exists, so return values may be covered there, but the missing when-to-use and operational context leave the description incomplete for a 7-parameter comparison tool.

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 input schema has 0% descriptive coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains each parameter, including the exact format for site_url (with examples), date format, defaults for dimensions and limit, and the subdomain filtering nuance. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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: 'Compare search analytics data between two time periods.' This is a specific verb ('compare') with a clear resource (search analytics data) and scope (two periods). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_search_analytics or get_advanced_search_analytics, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when comparing two periods' or 'for single-period data, use get_search_analytics.' The context is implied by the tool name and description but not articulated.

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