apk_teardown_compare_ownership

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the tool checks shared signing certificate and SDK/analytics identifiers and that inputs must be different completed jobs. However, it doesn't say anything about the output shape, read-only status, failure behavior, or prerequisites beyond 'completed.'

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause. There is minor redundancy—'Compare two...' is immediately restated as 'Compares two...'—but no wasted words overall.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough purpose and input constraints to approach the tool, but it omits return-value shape and any explicit pointer to the sibling diff tool for version comparison. That leaves a moderate gap for an agent deciding between apk_teardown_compare_ownership and apk_teardown_diff.

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 already documents both params at 100% coverage, but the description adds the crucial constraint that job_id_a and job_id_b must refer to two different completed jobs, not versions of the same app. This clarifies how to choose valid IDs beyond 'First job ID'/'Second job ID.'

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 ('Compare'), a clear resource ('two apk-teardown jobs'), and an outcome ('evidence of common ownership'). The parenthetical 'not versions of the same app' explicitly separates it from sibling tools like apk_teardown_diff.

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 clearly says this is for two DIFFERENT completed jobs and explicitly excludes version-to-version comparison, which is the main alternative use case. It doesn't name apk_teardown_diff as the fallback for same-app versions, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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