compare_qualification_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses read-only semantics ('writes, signs and executes nothing'), auth/config requirements (TRUST_GATE_API_URL/KEY/TENANT_ID, tenant never from an argument), and the explicit OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE response contract including the no-fabrication guarantee and version gating.

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 key constraint (read-only, no writes) is front-loaded and every clause is substantive, but the tail end is slightly padded with restatements ('never made-up data', 'A mapping or readout is not a compliance finding') that dilute focus.

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-value detail is partly redundant, and config/version caveats are well covered. However, for a tool whose only parameter is a free-form nested object, the absence of any guidance on request contents is a meaningful gap.

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 0% and the single required parameter is an open-ended nested object ('request', additionalProperties true). The description only gestures at 'the proposal inputs and results you supply' without naming or documenting any of the request's expected fields, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call from the definition.

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 verb and resource: it returns the status of each proposed retest after a change, enumerating the possible statuses (current, not current, unbound). It is distinguishable from siblings such as propose_requalification, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

It states the tool is a read-only comparison view that takes proposal inputs and results, which implies usage, but it never says when to call it instead of propose_requalification or replay_decision. The only explicit conditions are prerequisites (env vars, API version), not selection guidance.

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