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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output (identical/modified/added/removed plus field breakdown) and parameter defaults, but does not disclose mutation status (likely read-only) or any limitations. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the tool's function and key defaults.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description provides the gist but omits details on output structure and how to specify the clause (id). The spec enum and its implications are missing. Adequate for simple cases but not fully complete.

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 add meaning. It explains defaults for 'from' and 'to', but leaves 'id' (clause identifier) and 'spec' (spec version) unexplained. The enum for 'spec' is not described, and 'id' as required param lacks context.

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 it performs a clause-level diff across two editions of a spec, listing the types of changes reported and the field-level breakdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like clause.get (which retrieves a single clause) and spec.about (which gives spec metadata).

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 clear usage context: diffing a clause across editions, with defaults for from and to. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the purpose is distinct from siblings.

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