diff_provision

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return type (unified diff and summary) and requirements (premium feature, portal). No mention of destructive or side effects; it's a read operation. Adequately transparent.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and output; second adds essential licensing context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but description mentions the return format (unified diff and change summary). Covers all key aspects: resource, parameters, output, and access requirement. Would benefit from a bit more detail on the change summary, but overall complete enough for agent selection.

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 description coverage is 100%; each parameter is described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format or constraints). Baseline 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?

Clearly states the verb 'shows what changed' on the resource 'Swedish statute provision' and specifies output as 'unified diff and change summary'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_provision (current text) and get_provision_history (list of changes) by focusing on diff between two dates.

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 context: comparing a provision between two dates, and notes it's a premium feature requiring the portal. Does not explicitly say when not to use (e.g., to get current version use get_provision), but usage is clear enough for an agent.

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