metrika_compare

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 usefully discloses the default period-B behavior (auto-derived as an equal-length window immediately preceding period A) and the two output modes driven by dimensions, but says nothing about auth requirements, result format, or limits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then default period behavior, then the dimensions conditional. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a read-only comparison tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, defaults, and conditional behavior adequately. It could be more complete by hinting at the returned comparison structure or auth needs, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 89%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents most parameters including the prev_date1 default. The description adds meaning for the dimensions parameter (row-level comparison vs totals) and reinforces the period-B default, but does not add syntax or format 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?

Names a specific operation (comparing metrics between two periods) with a concrete example question, which distinguishes it in spirit from the single-period metrika_report/metrika_summary siblings. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('how did traffic change over the last month') and explains the conditional path when dimensions is set. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use metrika_report for single-period data) or stating when not to use it.

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