analytics_compare_periods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'compares performance metrics' without detailing what metrics are included, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite having 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what performance metrics are compared or the format of the output. This leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect upon return, making it incomplete for full autonomous use.

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% with each parameter having a clear description including date format (YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds little beyond the schema, only specifying that periods are compared. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 compares performance metrics between two date periods, with a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('performance metrics between two date periods'). It distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by focusing on period-over-period comparison, which is unique among the many analytics tools listed.

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 provides explicit context for usage: 'Useful for week-over-week or month-over-month analysis.' This gives clear guidance on when to apply the tool, but does not include when-not-to-use or mention alternatives, though the sibling list contains many analytics tools that could be alternatives.

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