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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions required, outcome limits (e.g., how many presentations can be compared), or what is returned. The term 'authorised' hints at a filtering behavior, but it is not explained. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary wording. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, so it is not well-rounded. It is appropriately short but under-specifies.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain decision_id at all, does not clarify what 'authorised' means, and does not describe any comparison result details. The reference to get_item helps, but it is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'presentations' which corresponds to presentation_ids, but it does not explain that decision_id is optional or what it represents. It does not specify the format or constraints of the IDs, despite referencing get_item. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 compares presentations side by side, which is specific and distinguishable from simply retrieving a presentation. It also references get_item for the format of IDs, providing a helpful pointer. However, it does not elaborate on what 'authorised' means or what kind of comparison is performed, so it is not fully explicit.

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 a hint that IDs are as for get_item, which indirectly tells users to consult that tool for ID format. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when needing a single presentation vs multiple), nor does it mention any limitations or exclusions. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it.

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