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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: the tool surfaces 'evidence and overlap' and deliberately 'does not automatically declare a winner', telling the agent the result is neutral and requires its own synthesis.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes needn't be described. But for a 5-parameter tool with three required fields and an undocumented nested filters object, the description leaves the agent without guidance on how the two perspectives and the limit parameter shape the result.

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 0% and the description explains none of the five parameters. It doesn't clarify the distinction between topic, perspective_a and perspective_b, what the nested filters object accepts, or what limit_per_side controls – all of which an agent must infer from bare property names.

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 states a clear verb-plus-resource: 'Retrieve separate source groups for two competing views on one topic', which is distinct from a generic evidence search. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling find_evidence or research, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'two competing views on one topic' – an agent can infer this is the tool for balanced, side-by-side comparison. However, no sibling alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are given, leaving the agent to guess whether find_evidence or research would be a better fit.

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