Compare search periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not contradict these. However, it adds no additional behavioral detail such as how comparison metrics are computed or what 'top rows' means. With strong annotations, the description adds modest value.

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 11-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is overly brief. It does not explain what the output looks like, how 'top rows' are determined, or what comparison metrics are provided. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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 13% (only site_url is described). The tool description mentions 'date ranges' and 'dimensions' but does not explain parameters like row_limit, search_type, or the period start/end formats. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving many parameters unclear.

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 compares top rows between two date ranges for the same dimensions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling gsc_search_analytics which likely handles single periods. The verb 'compare' and resource 'top rows' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for comparing two periods, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_search_analytics. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is clear but the guidelines are minimal.

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