Search Console: confronto tra periodi

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the default comparison window and the precise semantics of the yearAgo comparison. It does not cover pagination or result volume, but for a read-only analysis tool this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then the comparison-window semantics. No filler.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description reliably covers the primary semantic axis (the comparison period) and the returned structure. Remaining parameters (filters, dimensions, limit, days) are documented in the schema, though the custom comparison path is not addressed in the description.

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 coverage is 73%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks — the compareTo enum has no per-value description in the schema, yet the description explains that "previous" is the default and "yearAgo" means 52 weeks earlier with the same weekdays. The "custom" value and its dates are left unexplained, which is the one gap.

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 (confronta/compare) and resource (due periodi) plus what it returns: rows with the strongest click declines and growth, plus totals. This clearly distinguishes it from gsc_performance, which reports metrics rather than deltas.

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 the default behavior (compares against the previous period of equal length) and when to switch (compareTo="yearAgo" for 52 weeks prior with matching weekdays). It does not mention the "custom" option or say when to prefer this tool over gsc_performance, but the context offered is clear.

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