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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'the structural difference between the two states,' but does not elaborate on how the baseline is interpreted, timezone handling, or any edge-case behavior beyond what annotations already convey.

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 short and front-loaded, but the 'Example: call introspection_system_diff with arguments {}' is both incorrect and unhelpful, making the reader doubt the required arguments. The phrase 'same as confidence' is also cryptic for an agent that may not have that sibling's description loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what 'structural difference' concretely means; it does not. It also omits how baseline_kind='since' interacts with the baseline date and does not clarify when this tool should be chosen over similar introspection_system_* diff-like tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It does mention all four parameters, adds 'node_kind/node_id same as confidence', points to list_nodes as the source of valid ids, and gives the baseline date format. However, the semantics are mostly cross-references and format reminders, not deep explanation, and the example with '{}' conflicts with the schema's required parameters.

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 opening sentence 'Compare a node's evidence against a baseline date' names a specific verb, a clear resource ('node's evidence'), and the comparison scope. It is distinguishable from siblings by the baseline-diff semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain how it differs from tools like introspection_system_change_graph.

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 useful context: node ids come from introspection_system_list_nodes, node_kind/node_id follow the confidence tool convention, and the baseline format is spelled out. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus similar introspection tools, and the example 'call introspection_system_diff with arguments {}' is misleading given the four required parameters.

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