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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that identity is the authored testTag, that unresolved tags are reported rather than silently retargeted, and that live grant scope is required. It stops short of explicitly confirming the operation is read-only or non-destructive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the comparison purpose, then the non-obvious identity behavior, then the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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, but the invocation itself is under-specified. With 7 parameters and 14% schema coverage, the description should clarify how to identify the two previews and what overrides mean, which it does not.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, and the description names no parameters. It does not explain the uri vs catalog+previewId alternatives, the nested other object, or the overrides/otherOverrides inputs, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 and resource — comparing two previews' semantics by testTag — and enumerates the result categories (only-in-one, moved, occupancy changed). The emphasis on authored testTag over positional refs distinguishes it from a generic positional diff.

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 implies the appropriate context: semantic diff by stable testTag identity, with a stated prerequisite of live grant scope. However, it does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it versus siblings such as catalog_history_diff.

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