compare_requirements

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

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: discloses the search mechanism ('full-text search with relevance ranking') and return format ('text snippets showing how they address the topic'). Consistent with readOnlyHint=true. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences, each earning its place: (1) core purpose, (2) return value description, (3) search methodology. Front-loaded with the primary action and appropriately scoped for the tool's complexity.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and presence of safety annotations, the description adequately explains the return values (matching articles with snippets) despite no output schema. Could mention pagination or result limits, but sufficiently complete for agent selection and invocation.

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 100% with clear descriptions and examples for both parameters (topic and regulations). The description references these ('specific topic', 'multiple regulations') but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given comprehensive schema documentation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Search and compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('articles across multiple regulations'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_article (single retrieval) and diff_article (specific article comparison) by emphasizing 'across multiple regulations' and 'specific topic'.

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?

Provides clear context about the specific use case (comparing requirements across regulations on a topic), which implicitly guides selection over single-regulation or single-article tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives, but the functional scope is distinct enough to guide selection.

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