analytics_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. It also does not describe the response format or how 'drop attributions' are computed. The description is a thin feature list with no additional behavioral context, which is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Period-over-period') and lists three key capabilities without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with moderate complexity and earns a high score for conciseness.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the return values and edge cases. It only provides a brief feature list and does not clarify how modes differ, what 'trends' entails, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 seven parameters, including enums for mode and engine. The description adds minimal extra meaning by framing the tool around 'period-over-period' comparisons, which hints at the date parameters, but it does not explain parameter interplay or the meaning of different modes. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 scope: period-over-period search performance comparisons, trends, and traffic drop attributions. It identifies the resource (search performance) and implies analytical actions, though it lacks a direct verb like 'compare'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on period-over-period analysis and drop attribution, which are not mentioned in other tool names.

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 when period-over-period comparisons, trends, or drop attribution are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analytics_query or analytics_anomalies. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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