compare_date_ranges

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 mention 'percentage deltas' which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what metrics are included, how results are structured, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 key behavioral detail ('percentage deltas'). Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 is simple (two parameters, no output schema), and the description conveys the essential comparison and delta behavior. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have provided more on what exact metrics are returned or the format of the comparison result. The current level is adequate but leaves room for clarification.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (range_a and range_b) with enums and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Side-by-side comparison of AdSense metrics across two date ranges with percentage deltas.' It uses a specific verb (comparison) and resource (AdSense metrics), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_earnings_summary and get_top_pages by focusing on comparing two date ranges rather than single-period retrieval.

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 by explicitly mentioning two date ranges for comparison, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. Siblings are all 'get_' tools, so the comparative nature of this tool is clear, but the description stops short of saying 'use this when you need to compare periods.'

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