compare_search_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parameter details (e.g., site_url format, date format) but does not discuss side effects, return behavior, or safety (e.g., read-only). The basic purpose is clear but lacks depth.

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 efficient: one sentence stating purpose, followed by a focused Args block with line-by-line parameter explanations. No wasted words, and the key action is 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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema; the description covers all parameters adequately for invocation. However, it does not describe what metrics are compared or what the output contains, relying on the output schema. Missing details like comparison logic limit completeness.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning: site_url is explained with examples and domain property hints, periods specify YYYY-MM-DD format, and dimensions/limit have defaults clarified. This compensates well for 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?

The description clearly states 'Compare search analytics data between two time periods', specifying the action (compare) and resource (search analytics data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_search_analytics which are single-period, though no explicit sibling mention is needed.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with related tools like get_search_analytics.

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