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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool executes a comparison run and evaluates future state validity, which is useful context but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate value beyond the structured hints.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a clarifying hyphenated summary. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and use case. It could benefit from a note on what the comparison output looks like, but the combination of schema and annotations fills most gaps. A 4 reflects that it's nearly complete but missing some behavioral detail.

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%, meaning every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific detail, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 verb ('Run') and the resource ('the same data under two rule sets'), and explains the purpose: comparing which future states remain valid. This is a precise what-if analysis for rule changes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_semantic_equivalence or check_drift.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to perform what-if analysis on rule changes by running data under two rule sets. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is well-defined enough to guide an agent. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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