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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations do not: a per-call cost of 25 tokens and a Free-plan eligibility restriction, both of which materially affect whether an agent should invoke it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the eligibility constraint and then the cost. Zero filler; every clause carries a distinct operational fact.

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 never says what a comparison returns (a side-by-side table, prose, or the 'answer' the lang parameter implies), which is a real gap for a tool whose whole value is its output. The Free-plan and cost notes are good, but the item-count error leaves the definition partly unreliable.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description states '2 to 10 premises' while the schema caps ids at maxItems 5. That mismatch actively misleads an agent into passing 6-10 ids that will fail validation, which is worse than adding no parameter detail at all.

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 action (put premises side by side) on a specific resource (premises), scoped to ids returned by a search. It is distinguishable from claro_get_premises (single premise) and claro_search_premises, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (ids must come from a prior search) and a plan-based restriction (on Free, only ids your own searches returned). It stops short of naming which sibling to call first or when to prefer claro_get_premises instead.

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