compare_playbook

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds that the tool 'identifies deviations and required approvals' which gives output context but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or response format. With annotations covering safety, the additional behavioral disclosure is limited.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 absence of an output schema, the description hints at return values (deviations and required approvals), which is helpful. With only two parameters and high schema coverage, the description largely covers the necessary context, though it could specify the output format.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (analysisId as completed analysis ID, playbookId as playbook ID). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares a contract analysis against a playbook to find deviations and required approvals. The verb 'compare' and specific resources (analysis, playbook) differentiate it from siblings like 'check_dealbreakers' or 'extract_clause'.

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 implies usage context (requires a completed analysis and a playbook) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The guidance is adequate but not detailed.

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