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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, notably the cost of $0.25 USDC via x402 and the bounded nature of the output, which are not disclosed in annotations. This helps the agent understand the tool's non-annotation-related behaviors.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the pricing detail, with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 covers the core purpose and cost, but omits important details such as how to supply the two snapshots within the open schema, what 'bounded' means, and the structure of the machine-readable digest. Given the lack of an output schema and an open input schema, the agent has limited guidance for constructing the request and interpreting the result.

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?

The input schema has no defined parameters (0 parameters) and is an open object, so the description partially compensates by mentioning 'two supplied text snapshots'. However, it does not specify exact parameter keys or structure. Since the schema provides zero property-level descriptions, the description adds some meaning but could be more explicit.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two supplied text snapshots'), and specifies the output ('bounded, machine-readable change digest'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are audits or reviews. The title 'Content Change Digest' aligns with the description.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer applicability without clear direction.

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