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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and destructive behavior, and the description adds crucial context: payment requires explicit wallet authorization, normalizes line endings, preserves whitespace, and enforces size limits. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and explains the side-effect nature of the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, then covers output, normalization, limits, and payment in a logical order. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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?

The core operation is well described, but with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits the return format and the meaning of all optional parameters. An agent would struggle to correctly construct a full invocation, especially regarding payment authorization and result signatures.

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 while the description mentions 'two texts' and their limits, it does not explain the actual parameters such as 'before', 'after', 'result_expires', 'idempotency_key', 'result_signature', or 'payment_signature'. Optional parameters are left completely undocumented, and the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Compare'), resource ('two texts'), and algorithm ('deterministic longest-common-subsequence line matching'). It also distinguishes itself from semantic comparison, making its scope clear relative to sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: line-based exact comparison with defined limits, explicitly noting it is not a semantic comparison. It does not name an alternative tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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