compare_periods

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the tool's behavior: it compares two periods and returns a JSON result with structured fields based on compare_type. It implies read-only analysis (no mention of modification), but could explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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 (main purpose, use cases, args, returns, examples). It is relatively long but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficiently organized.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and a complex structured output, the description is extremely thorough. It explains input formats, output fields per compare_type, and provides three concrete examples. The output schema is mentioned and the return structure is described adequately.

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%, but the description compensates completely. It details every parameter: period1/period2 formats (object or presets), topic optionality, compare_type with enumerated values and their meanings, platforms as a filter list, and top_n integer. Examples illustrate usage, making the semantics crystal clear.

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: comparing news data between two time periods. It specifies the verb 'compare periods' and the resource 'news data'. The examples (e.g., week-over-week comparison, topic shift analysis) further clarify its distinct role among sibling tools like 'analyze_topic_trend'.

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 includes a dedicated '使用场景' section with concrete scenarios (e.g., comparing weekly changes, topic heat differences) and multiple examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools, missing some guidance on tool selection.

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