li_compare_periods

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. States it returns per-entity rows with delta columns and that deltas are computed server-side. Does not mention read-only status or rate limits, but for a comparison tool this is adequate.

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?

Concise 4 sentences with no fluff. Front-loads purpose, then details modes, output, and use cases. Effectively communicates without excess.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return structure. Sufficient for agent to understand tool's niche among siblings. Could mention required parameters (none required) but overall complete.

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 low (20%). Description adds meaning for 'comparison' enum and 'fields' (implicitly). Does not detail 'campaign_ids' or 'ad_account_id', but these are standard in LinkedIn tools. Some value added beyond 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?

Describes a specific action: comparing campaign performance across two time periods. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like li_get_campaign_performance which likely returns single-period data.

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?

Explains when to use (weekly/monthly reports, anomaly detection) and details the three comparison modes. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear enough for the agent.

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