pirsch_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'true period totals' but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It does not describe the output format or pagination. With no annotations, more transparency is needed, but the description is too brief.

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 one sentence long, which is concise but not structured. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details for proper usage. Given the complexity (8 parameters, some with enums), the description is too short to be effective. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, making it complex. The description fails to explain how to specify periods, what 'true period totals' means, or how to interpret the comparison results. It is completely inadequate for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this tool without additional context.

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 only 13% (only the 'compare' parameter has a description). The description does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'from', 'to', 'compare_from', 'compare_to', 'scale', 'period', or 'domain_id'. Despite the low coverage, the description adds no semantic value beyond 'compare between two periods'. Users would need to infer parameter usage.

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 purpose: compare totals and visitor series between two periods using true period totals. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and identifies the resource (totals and visitor series), and the context (between two periods). This distinguishes it from siblings like pirsch_total and pirsch_visitors, which focus on single periods.

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 when to use the tool (to compare two periods), but it does not provide any guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings. For example, it does not clarify how this differs from pirsch_growth, which might also involve comparisons. The description lacks explicit exclusions or context for choosing this tool.

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