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

With only a title annotation and no read-only or destructive hints, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns only rows whose rank or score changes, along with delta fields and sample metadata. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or whether it requires a prior session/wake, though the term 'Compare' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned fields efficiently. It is not bloated, though the long enumeration of return fields could arguably be broken into two sentences for readability without losing value.

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 enumerates the expected return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It also references the boost window and sample source, giving useful context. It does not explain the relationship to 'wake' or session requirements, but the schema documents kit_session_id and siblings make this discoverable.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds context about what the returned comparison contains but does not add new meaning to the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Compare search ranking') and a specific resource ('for a query with and without the recently learned boost'). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling memory tools by describing a comparison/analysis operation rather than a memory write or recall operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to see how ranking changes due to a learned boost. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the siblings. The purpose is clear enough that a capable agent can infer the use case, but explicit routing guidance is missing.

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