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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: only ACCEPTED findings are considered, and results are bucketed into new/fixed/persisting. It omits the directionality of the comparison (whether job_id_a is the baseline or the newer run) and any cost/pagination characteristics of the diff.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical enumerating outcomes efficiently. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical takes space that could have gone to the a-vs-b ordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the accepted-only filter is stated. For a two-input comparison tool, however, the unresolved A/B ordering plus missing preconditions (job completion, matching target) leave the definition only adequate.

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 the parameters are bare job_id_a / job_id_b. The description never explains which ID is the reference and which is the comparison, which is the single most important semantic for a diff tool — swapping them inverts 'new' and 'fixed'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare ACCEPTED findings between two jobs') and even enumerates the diff categories (new / fixed / persisting), which no sibling tool (get_job, get_finding, explain_finding) does. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this when you have two job IDs and want the delta in findings. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about whether both jobs must be complete/same target, and no pointer to get_job for inspecting a single job.

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