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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the comparison preserves separate methods, evidence, contradictions and readiness states, i.e. it does not fuse outputs. It says nothing about output shape, ordering, or failure modes when ledgers are incompatible.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and immediately qualifies it with the non-blending guarantee. No filler, though the phrasing is dense enough that it reads slightly like jargon.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the closed-world/read-only profile is covered by annotations. The description is adequate for a one-parameter comparison tool, with the only real gap being ledger input structure.

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% and the single parameter is an untyped array of objects with minItems 2. The description compensates only partially: it clarifies the items are 'tradition ledgers' supplied explicitly, but gives no hint about ledger structure, required fields, or why minItems is 2.

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?

States a specific verb (compares) and resource (explicitly supplied tradition ledgers), and adds a distinguishing property: it preserves separation rather than blending. It does not name the nearest sibling (compare_conventions, compare_reading_versions), so an agent must still infer which comparison tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many compare_* siblings. The phrase 'explicitly supplied' hints that inputs must be provided rather than fetched, but this is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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