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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals key behavioral traits: it reports added/removed permissions and whether the change widens the install-time warning set, which can cause Chrome to disable the extension for existing users. This is a non-obvious consequence that goes beyond the basic 'compares' verb, though it stops short of detailing whether the tool itself has side effects or requires specific access.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by precise output details. No redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return values (score delta, additions/removals, warning-set change). It also covers the practical consequence of the comparison, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter (before, after, before_hosts, after_hosts). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 compares permissions and host patterns of two versions of an extension, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from siblings (analyze_manifest, explain_permission) by focusing on comparison between versions and reporting deltas.

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 usage for comparing two versions of an extension, and the outputs (score delta, added/removed) make the context clear. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident and differentiates from siblings.

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