gsc_compare_search_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions returns improved/declined queries with click/impression changes, sorts by biggest change, and includes a limit. However, it lacks details on statistical significance, pagination, or whether results are aggregated, which would enhance transparency.

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 a header, a bullet for usage, and an Args section. It is clear and front-loaded, with each sentence adding value. Slightly verbose in parameter examples, but overall concise for the level of detail needed.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. However, it does not describe the output structure beyond 'returns which queries improved or declined', leaving gaps in understanding the return format.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including format examples (e.g., site_url format, YYYY-MM-DD for dates), defaults (dimensions, limit), and sources (gsc_list_properties). This adds significant meaning beyond the basic schema titles.

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 compares search performance between two date ranges and surfaces changes, and explicitly lists use cases (month-over-month, campaign impact, seasonal trends). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_get_performance_overview by focusing on comparative analysis.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Use this for:' and lists specific scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like gsc_get_performance_overview, which could further improve clarity.

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