compare_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds important behavior: always returns section-level XML, indicates size limits, and describes return format (parsed text side by side). It could add more on error cases (e.g., what happens if dates invalid), but given annotations, this is solid. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured: opening sentence states core purpose, then usage guidance, then a warning about size. Each sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. Appropriate length for a compare tool with important constraints.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential usage constraints, date formatting, size limit, and the nature of the return (parsed text side by side). It's complete for a read-only comparison tool with clear input requirements. Potential gaps like exact output structure are covered by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explicitly explains date format (YYYY-MM-DD), the meaning of section_id (small section like '15.305', not whole part), and the date range constraints. It clarifies title_number default? Not directly, but 'title' context is implied. The description compensates well for missing schema descriptions, adding meaning beyond bare parameter names. It doesn't mention 'chapter' parameter, but the focus on section_id and dates is the main semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it compares text of a CFR section at two dates, with specific scope (section-level, not whole part), and differentiates from siblings like get_version_history or get_cfr_content by emphasizing side-by-side text comparison for diffing. The resource (CFR section) and verb (compare) are specific, and it notes the diff use case.

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?

Explicit guidance: when to use (understanding regulatory changes), constraints (dates in YYYY-MM-DD, within tracking range, within up_to_date_as_of), size caveat (small section_id, whole-part can exceed 100KB). Also implies when not to use (whole-part comparisons), though no explicit alternatives named from siblings. Still strong context for selection.

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