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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description adds meaningful detail about mode-specific behavior and the linked-version comparison option. It does not mention output format or error cases, but the read-only nature is well covered.

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 concise and well-structured, using three sentences to cover purpose, modes, parameter constraints, and the related alternative. No redundant or vague wording is present.

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 description gives enough context for tool selection and basic invocation, including mode constraints and the alternative tool. It does not describe the return value, which would be helpful given there is no output schema, but this is not critical for choosing the tool.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters well, and the description adds critical interaction semantics such as exactly-one-of and the single-mode-only behavior of checkAgainstLinkedVersion. This goes beyond the schema's basic field documentation.

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 clearly states the tool checks for schema drift between a test case's linked endpoint snapshot and the current spec. It also distinguishes two modes and contrasts with sync_test_from_spec, making its primary use obvious.

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 explicitly explains the two modes, states that exactly one of testCaseId or specId must be provided, and notes the behavior of checkAgainstLinkedVersion. It also gives guidance on when to use sync_test_from_spec instead, providing clear usage direction.

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