Period Comparison Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that percentage changes are computed, which is useful but limited. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra context, aligning with the calibration example for a 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the verb and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the full schema, rich annotations, and clear description, the tool is well-specified. The description mentions percentage changes, which is the key output, and the response_format parameter covers output presentation. No output schema exists, but the description plus schema are sufficient for a comparison tool.

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 100% with detailed descriptions and enums for all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond 'revenue, invoice count' as examples, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource ('business metrics') and scope ('between two time periods with percentage changes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like fortnox_invoice_summary or fortnox_yearly_comparison, as period-over-period comparison is the unique focus.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (comparing metrics across two periods) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternatives among the many sibling report tools. This is clear context without exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 but is still strong.

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