compare_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, read-only nature, default behavior, or what the comparison returns. Only 'compare ... for spend/clicks/conversions' hints at the output shape.

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?

A single short sentence with the key concept front-loaded and no filler. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, so it is only minimally adequate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the critical gaps remain: undocumented parameters with defaults, no usage context, and no behavioral disclosure for a comparison tool with zero annotations.

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% across all three parameters, and the description only vaguely gestions 'two periods' without mapping to date_preset_a/date_preset_b. No allowed values, formats, or the fact that both default to last_7d/last_30d, and no account scoping is explained.

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 (compare) with a clear scope: two periods on spend/clicks/conversions. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_insights, but it never names or contrasts itself with those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this comparison tool instead of get_insights, get_account_insights, or analyze_campaign, nor any precondition or exclusion. The agent must guess at the selection criteria.

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