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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context by listing what is included (decisionProfile dimensions, metadata, notes, relations) and explicitly noting what is omitted (source evidence, raw URLs, write operations). This goes beyond the 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 description is compact and well-structured, leading with the action and use case, then stating return contents and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately outlines the nature of returned data and what is excluded. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but for a read-only comparison tool with full schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions. The tool description does not add further semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so it sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's function: comparing two to four public knowledge graph entities, with a specific scope and purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on comparison rather than retrieval or search, which is immediately 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?

It explicitly states the condition for use: 'when a user needs a short-list comparison.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or directly reference alternative tools, so it lacks the full when/when-not guidance.

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