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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: default output is 'compact evidence' and verbose=true adds response previews, which tells the agent how output size/verbosity behaves — something the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a colon-list of concrete divergence types, then the verbosity note. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description does well to sketch the return shape ('compact evidence', previews under verbose), which is the key missing piece. However, it leaves the 'version' parameter completely undocumented and gives no scoping or error behavior, so the picture is only partially complete for a 3-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'tool' is documented, with an example). The description compensates for 'verbose' by explaining that it adds response previews, but the 'version' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is partial.

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 specific resource (divergences between the live API and its OpenAPI spec) and enumerates the concrete categories of divergence — unenforced limits, unvalidated types, unrequired required params, loose enums. That is far more specific than the name alone and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version_diff or get_request_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Usage is implied by the content: you'd call this when auditing whether documented behavior matches reality. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of how this differs from siblings such as get_version_diff, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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