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

The annotations declare openWorldHint=true, but the description says 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' which directly contradicts that annotation. The description also fails to explain the destructiveHint=true trait, leaving the behavioral profile inconsistent and unclear.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds practical context: scope of comparison, no-legal-advice boundary, no-outbound-behavior, output format, and payment requirement. It is compact with no meaningful filler.

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 and zero parameter documentation, the tool needs a stronger description to be safely invocable. The description mentions that it returns a draft and requires payment authorization, but it doesn't specify required input structure, signature/expiration semantics, or how the draft is delivered.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only alludes to 'supplied documents' and 'explicit wallet authorization.' It does not clarify the roles of brief, source_text, audience, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature.

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 names a specific action ('Compare the supplied documents') and the target output types ('substantive changes, omissions, conflicts, and questions'), so an agent can tell this is a semantic document comparison tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like text_line_compare, but the word 'document' and 'substantive' convey the intended scope reasonably well.

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 gives useful constraints such as 'do not give legal advice' and 'no external research or outbound actions', and it notes the result is a draft for human review. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like text_line_compare or document_summary, nor any exclusion criteria for when not to use it.

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