compare_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation (comparing two periods) and the kind of output (absolute/relative change), but it does not disclose details such as the meaning of 'governed metric', date format expectations, behavior with overlapping periods, or error handling. The core behavior is conveyed, but significant context is missing.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, achieving maximum clarity in minimal words.

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 of five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain the return format, parameter conventions, or how this tool relates to its siblings. A comprehensive description would be necessary for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'two periods' but does not explain the date format, the five required parameters, or the valid values for metric_name. An agent cannot infer what inputs to provide or how they should be structured.

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 the specific verb 'compare' with a clear resource ('a governed metric between two periods') and states the intended output ('absolute/relative change'). It is clear enough to understand the core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'compare_review_completion_by_dimension' tool, which also performs a comparison but on a dimension-specific metric.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where comparing periods is appropriate. The sibling tools include similar comparison and diagnostic tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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