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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that delivery is pull-only and that snapshot retention is the caller's responsibility. It says nothing about the shape or content of the comparison result, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core comparison behavior is front-loaded and the operational constraint follows. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 one nested-array parameter at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is only adequate. An agent can infer the general contract but not the snapshot object shape, the item limit, or what the diff response contains, all of which the description would need to supply given the structured fields don't.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does: 'caller-held snapshots' explains the concept and the three change dimensions hint at which fields drive comparison. It never mentions the required per-snapshot fields (id, amountAtomic, network, asset, payTo) or the 50-item cap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Compare caller-held snapshots with the live public catalog') and enumerates the three change dimensions checked: price, payment-term and catalog-presence. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_catalog or get_listing, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It implies the usage model well — the caller must persist snapshots and schedule its own polling, and there is no push delivery — which tells an agent this is a poll-diff tool rather than a subscription. However, it never says when to choose this over search_catalog or get_listing, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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