compare_search_periods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes overall totals and optional breakdowns, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how it handles missing data, or any rate limits. It also doesn't clarify the meaning of 'biggest movers' or the sorting behavior beyond the rowLimit parameter description.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the optional breakdown. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage guidance.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on return format, error handling, or specific behavioral expectations. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema, especially for a comparison tool that might have complex output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the overall comparison and optional dimension breakdown, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The rowLimit parameter is described in the schema, and the description's mention of 'biggest movers' aligns with the schema's 'sorted by biggest click change'.

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 search performance between two time periods, including overall totals with absolute and percentage changes, plus an optional per-dimension breakdown. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_search_analytics and get_performance_overview by focusing on period comparison, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 get_search_analytics or get_performance_overview. It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions that would guide an agent to choose this tool over others.

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