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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (resultA/resultB and diff fields), which is beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations; no contradictions found.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and then listing return fields. It is not overly verbose, and every sentence contributes relevant information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by clearly outlining the return format and what the diff contains. It covers purpose, usage context, and expected results, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter individually described (e.g., 'Baseline version ID' and 'Candidate version ID'). The description adds a valuable semantic that 'facts' are the same for both versions, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('Compare'), resource ('dry run results between two versions'), and scope ('using the same input facts'). Clearly distinguishes from lexq_dry_run (single run) and other diff tools like lexq_deploy_diff, as it is specifically for dry run comparisons.

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 includes 'Useful for validating changes,' which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, though the purpose itself is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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