compare_support_register

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it works without AutoCAD, position_tolerance is in drawing units rather than a normative tolerance, and ambiguous TAGs are deliberately not matched. The matching semantics are valuable context not derivable from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly labeled WHEN TO USE, parameters, and a concrete example. Dense but every block earns its place; only minor redundancy between the first line and the parameters note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a snapshot-comparison tool it covers purpose, precondition, key parameter semantics, and matching behavior well; the only gap is the undocumented limit and allow_document_change parameters.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It clarifies position_tolerance (drawing units, non-normative) and requires before/after to be 'completos', but leaves limit and allow_document_change entirely unexplained, covering only three of five parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Compara revisões por TAG') and enumerates the result categories (inserted/removed, displacements, changed attributes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling snapshot_support_register and audit_support_register, which do not compare revisions.

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 'QUANDO USAR' section gives a concrete precondition (revisions of support registers with identical units/filters) and notes it runs without AutoCAD. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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