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 behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the return format (JSON with specific structure) and providing multiple examples. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid date ranges. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the lack of annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage scenarios, args, returns, examples). It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise - the parameter explanations are thorough but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 complex comparison tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good completeness. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, detailed parameter semantics, return format, and examples. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to fully document return values. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error conditions or performance characteristics given the complexity of the analysis.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter documentation. It explains all 6 parameters in detail: period1/period2 formats (date ranges or preset values), topic as optional keyword, compare_type with three specific options and defaults, platforms as filter list, and top_n with default. The description adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, fully compensating for the schema coverage gap.

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 purpose: '时期对比分析 - 比较两个时间段的新闻数据' (Period comparison analysis - compare news data from two time periods). It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'news data from two time periods', and distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on comparative analysis rather than single-period analysis like analyze_topic_trend or get_trending_topics.

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 clear usage scenarios under '使用场景' (Usage scenarios) with three specific examples: comparing weekly changes, analyzing topic heat differences, and examining platform activity periodic changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different types of analysis.

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