compare_versions

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

Beyond annotations (read-only), the description clarifies it returns parsed XML at both dates, that comparison is at section level, and provides size/date constraints. This adds value for the agent's understanding of behavior.

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: three paragraphs clearly state purpose, usage guidelines, and constraints. It front-loads the main action. Could be slightly more structured but is effective.

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?

The description is largely complete: states purpose, usage, constraints, and output type. With output schema present, return values are covered. Minor gaps in parameter explanations but overall adequate.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It describes date format and section_id usage, but does not explain title_number or chapter parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value but not complete parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing CFR section text across two dates. It mentions the use case (understanding regulatory changes) and differentiates from other CFR tools by focusing on comparison.

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 usage context: useful for regulatory amendments. It gives constraints on dates and section size, implicitly guiding when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_cfr_content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison purposes.

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