diagnose_review_completion_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'diagnose' and 'comparing,' suggesting analysis, but does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, what actions are taken, any prerequisites (e.g., date format validation), or what the output represents. This lack of transparency is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and concise.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description must provide a complete picture. It explains the high-level purpose but omits behavioral details, return values, error scenarios, and parameter specifics. For a 4-parameter diagnostic tool, more information is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%—parameters have no descriptions. The description only mentions 'two periods,' which maps to the four date parameters but does not explain date formats, constraints, or how 'device segments' are selected or passed. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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's function: diagnose a review-completion change, with a specific method (comparing device segments across two periods). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_periods (generic period comparison) and compare_review_completion_by_dimension (likely for any dimension).

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 via the context: use when a review-completion change needs diagnosis through device segment comparison across two periods. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., if dimension is not device-specific).

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