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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds output details (relative scores, gaps, weaknesses) but does not disclose behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or side effects. This matches the baseline for a description that adds some value without rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output details, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must partially explain return values. It does mention 'relative scores, category gaps, and unique weaknesses,' which is a useful summary, though not exhaustive. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters. It is adequately complete for a comparison tool, but lacks a precise output format description.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for domains, format, or force_refresh. The only implied semantic is the 2–5 domain limit, which is already in the schema. No compensation needed, so baseline holds.

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 a specific verb ('comparison') and resource ('domains'), and specifies output: 'relative scores, category gaps, and unique weaknesses.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_baseline, which likely compares against a baseline rather than other domains.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use when comparing your security posture against a competitor, or doing a head-to-head comparison between multiple domains.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest score requiring explicit when-not/alternatives.

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