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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: unknown ids land in a 'missing' field with a near-miss suggestion, the rest are still compared, and missing attributes render as null.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage trigger is in the second sentence, and the error behavior is in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how to prepare inputs, and how unknown ids are handled.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already well documented. The description reinforces the workflow by saying to resolve names first via search or get_topic and then pass the ids, adding practical context beyond the schema.

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 verb ('compare') and resource ('knowledge objects side by side'), then enumerates what the output contains. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by giving explicit question shapes ('X vs Y', 'is X the same as Y').

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers and a clear prerequisite: search or get_topic first if only names are available, then pass ids. It does not explicitly name when-not alternatives such as get_related, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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