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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, while the description adds meaningful context beyond those: it states what the comparison does NOT provide (correctness verdict, proof of independent reproduction) and warns that participant text is untrusted data. This is valuable behavioral guidance.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence contributes either scope, comparison details, or a caveat. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple two-UUID tool with strong annotations, the description covers what is compared, key limitations, and data trust expectations. The main gap is the lack of parameter-role clarification, but the tool's simplicity and clear names keep it from being incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'two public records' without distinguishing finding_id from other_id or explaining whether order matters. The parameter names offer some clue, but the description adds no real semantic differentiation between them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Compare two public records') and enumerates concrete comparison dimensions: scenario differences, stored statuses, attempt counts, and arrival gaps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_retry_finding or list_retry_findings.

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 clearly conveys the tool's use case: comparing two records. It also adds important exclusions ('No correctness verdict or proof of independent reproduction'), which helps an agent know when not to rely on it. It does not name explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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