compare_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: 5 requests with web queried first and the remainder 'skipped' on a 429 (rate-limit handling), plus the crucial semantic that channels are separate 0-100 scales. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits auth requirements and any error behavior beyond 429, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the core purpose before the output shape and the request/scale caveats. Some terse shorthand ('direction / direction_now / growth_3m') is dense but each clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers behavior and interpretation well. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the near-total absence of parameter semantics leaves the definition incomplete for correct 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 schema provides no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies the keyword via 'a topic' and says nothing about geo or timeframe, leaving two of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 names the resource (Google properties/channels: web, youtube, news, images, shopping) and specifies the comparison output (direction, direction_now, growth_3m, fastest_channel, format_hint). It is far from a tautology and lets an agent understand what the tool produces. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling compare_keywords, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over siblings like compare_keywords or trending_now. The only usage-adjacent content is an interpretive caveat ('compare growth, never means'), which is not routing guidance.

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