gsc_find_losses_gains

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states that deltas are returned, but it does not disclose that results are likely limited/sorted via topN and sortBy, that minAbsClickDelta filters results, or how default comparison periods are derived. These are material behaviors for a comparison tool and are left implicit.

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 no filler. It efficiently captures the tool's core purpose and output without repeating schema details.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 10 parameters, nested date-range objects, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description is insufficient to cover default-period behavior, result ordering/truncation, filtering, or output shape. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it reliably.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It maps conceptually to 'query or page' and to the delta metrics, but it adds little meaning for topN, limit, sortBy, datePreset, or searchType. The enum names help, but the description itself does not clarify how these parameters shape the comparison.

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') and names the resource ('query or page performance') and the exact output metrics ('click/impression/CTR/position deltas'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like gsc_compare_search_types, which compares search types rather than periods, and gsc_query_search_analytics, which is not period-delta focused.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to compare two periods of query or page performance. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the contextual signal is strong enough for tool selection.

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