Compare pages

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description clearly describes state-changing behavior — 'THE FIRST CALL ON A URL RECORDS THE BASELINE' and the save_baseline parameter replaces the baseline — while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the read-only guarantee and would mislead an agent about side effects.

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 long but every sentence carries important operational detail: first-call behavior, statistical interpretation, version-change caveat, field-data limitation, and runtime cost. It is front-loaded with purpose but could be tightened.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers all essential context: workflows, side effects, statistical interpretation, known version-change trap, field-data limitation, and performance cost. This is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters already have descriptions. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema: first call records the baseline automatically, verdicts are only given when ranges do not overlap, and save_baseline semantics are tied to the workflow. This raises it above the baseline 3.

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 starts with a clear user question ('did that change actually help') and then states the mechanism: measures now and compares against a saved baseline for the same URL and strategy. It is specific about the resource being compared and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT compare field data.

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 an explicit workflow: first call records the baseline, make the change, then call again. It also gives a clear when-not: field data is a 28-day window and cannot show a change made this week. The slowness warning is practical guidance that helps the agent decide whether to use this tool.

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