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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Never supplies assent' — but the remaining clauses about drafting and HTML rendering describe other actions and muddy rather than clarify this call's behavior.

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?

A single run-on sentence lists four capabilities of which three do not apply, burying the operative action at the very end. The most important information (this is a read-only diff of before/after) is neither front-loaded nor separated from the noise.

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 the diff result format (change paths, added/removed values, depth handling for nested objects), and it says nothing. For a two-param nested-object comparison tool with zero schema documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about both inputs and returns.

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%: both required params 'before' and 'after' are bare untyped objects with only maxProperties constraints and no explanation. The phrase 'compare exact changes' weakly implies these are the two document versions being diffed, but the description never states their shape, nesting, or what 'exact' comparison means for nested objects.

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 enumerates four unrelated capabilities (drafting, ancestry preservation, comparison, HTML rendering) and only disambiguates via the trailing 'Selected action: compare.' An agent must parse the whole list to learn this invocation diffs two documents, and the leading verb 'Draft' points at a different sibling's job.

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?

'Selected action: compare' implies the tool is the comparison entry point, but there is no statement of when to use this versus covenant_contract__inspect, covenant_contract__draft, or covenant_contract__render, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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