compare_to_peers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the key fact the annotations cannot convey: the tool is a stub that will always report unavailability because no peer dataset or remote service exists, which prevents the agent from expecting results. It stops short of stating the exact response shape.

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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing, with the unavailable outcome front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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?

For a single-parameter stub with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to know the call is a no-op reporting unavailability. The only gap is the undocumented snapshot_id, which is minor given the tool returns nothing useful.

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?

There is one parameter (snapshot_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions the parameter at all. The agent must infer that snapshot_id comes from take_snapshot and what an invalid or missing value would do.

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 names a specific action and resource: it reports that peer comparison is unavailable, which is an unusual but unambiguous purpose. No sibling in the list performs peer comparison, so the agent can differentiate it from take_snapshot, list_findings, and the rest without opening any schema.

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 clause 'No peer dataset or remote service is enabled' implies the tool should not be relied on for actual data, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when an agent should call this versus simply skipping peer analysis, and no alternative tool or condition is named.

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