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

Discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: the runtime uses pano camera coverage, causing uncertain cases to be returned as INDETERMINATE rather than guessed. This adds significant transparency about result semantics, going beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and helping the agent set expectations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, follow-up guidance, and behavioral caveat. No fluff or redundancy, perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 provides enough for basic usage but is incomplete for a tool with 13 parameters. It covers the core concept and important caveat, and the output schema exists, but the parameter richness is not fully addressed. The lack of parameter descriptions means the agent may be uncertain about advanced filtering options, reducing overall completeness.

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?

With 13 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description only covers a few: baseline_date and comparison_date (implied by 'two dates'), level_ids and min_confidence ('level or confidence filters'). Many parameters like query, statuses, polygon, timezone, team_domain, facility_key, minimum_level_number, user_intent, and limit are not explained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 findings between two dates for QA/QC questions, listing specific delta states (added, resolved, unchanged, moved). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze-progress-and-forecasts by focusing on change detection between captures, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('Use for QA/QC questions') and actionable advice for follow-up calls (reuse prior dates, add level/confidence filters). It lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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