compare_periods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the edge-case behavior of rows existing in only one period (included with zeros), which is valuable. However, it omits auth/permission needs, whether the operation is read-only, and pagination semantics.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by two well-structured conditional behavior sentences. Efficient, with only minor redundancy between the two period-behavior sentences.

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 output schema exists so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the dimension-mode behavior. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the omission of behavioral and parameter details leaves real gaps for a 9-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the effect of dimension (and partially row_limit via 'top rows'), leaving site, filters, search_type, and the four date parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two date ranges) plus the core output (deltas). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_analytics, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies usage through describing the with-dimension vs no-dimension behaviors, which helps an agent choose the mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative to search_analytics.

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