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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description genuinely adds value on top: it enumerates what is NOT produced (scores, cost totals, suitability conclusions, vendor calls) and discloses that documentation is not reviewed and vendor integrations are untested. That is meaningful negative-scope context beyond the annotations.

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 core comparison statement is front-loaded and the exclusion list is useful, but the later sentences ('Complete declarations appear once in interfaces...') are opaque jargon that do not clearly earn their place and slightly dilute an otherwise tight description.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries extra burden, and it does usefully state what is not returned. But the actual returned content ('recorded gaps') is left vague and the parameter behavior is largely unaddressed, so it is only adequate for a 5-parameter comparison tool.

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 60%, and the description adds almost no meaning to the parameters. Lines like 'Complete declarations appear once in interfaces; matched/guide entries are explicit local references' are cryptic and do not map visibly onto fields, pricing, locale, or language, leaving part of the gap uncompensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Compare 2 to 4 exact selected candidate IDs and their recorded gaps', with a clear cardinality bound. It implies the 'selected candidate' scope that distinguishes it from the sibling compare_software, but never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Only the retained current observation is available; historical batch queries are not accepted' gives a partial when-not condition. However, no alternative tool is named and no positive guidance on when this is preferred over compare_software or candidate_get_software is given, so usage is only implied.

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