compare_periods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the purpose but no behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. For a comparison tool, likely safe, but not disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words. Could optionally include more detail about output, but not required.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and listed metrics. However, it doesn't mention output format (e.g., absolute differences, percentages) or that an output schema exists. Given the tool has an output schema, the missing details are less critical, but the description could be more complete.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Period A start (YYYY-MM-DD)'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds little beyond summarizing the metrics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it compares two time periods across specific metrics (revenue, orders, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_scenarios (which likely compares scenarios) or forecast_demand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, so not 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for comparing historical periods vs. compare_scenarios for hypotheticals. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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