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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the cost (800 micro-dollar credits per successful call), auth requirements, and the billing semantics of new requestIds. It also clarifies recovery behavior, which is not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact billing, prerequisite, and recovery guidance. Every sentence adds essential operational information with no 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?

The description covers cost, prerequisites, auth, and recovery semantics, and an output schema exists to define return values. It lacks an explicit comparison to sibling tools or a fuller definition of 'selected direct breaking changes,' but the essential calling context is present.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to requestId ('reuse after uncertainty') and maxPriceMicroUsd ('0 means recovery only') beyond their schema descriptions. It also ties the input to agent_utilities_prepare, though the before/after objects themselves remain semantically thin.

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 precise action and resource: detecting selected direct breaking changes between OpenAPI 3.0 documents. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like contracts_openapi_lint (single-document linting) and data_json_diff (generic JSON diffing) even without naming them.

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 concrete usage context: must call agent_utilities_prepare first, requires credits and a private Authorization header, and should reuse prepared arguments for recovery. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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