zerodom_compare_identities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so richly: the default identity set ("the live session plus every registered one"), the distinct transport paths (in-page Chrome fetch for the live identity vs Playwright HTTP client for registered ones, cookies included but no Chrome TLS fingerprint), and the WAF-fingerprinting implication of each path. This is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret diverging responses correctly.

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 with the one-line purpose before the mechanics, and every sentence adds substance (defaults, transport, IDOR signal). The final sentence is slightly long/dense but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious behavioral difference.

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 spelled out, though the description helpfully notes it reports status and size per response. For a fetch-and-compare tool the coverage is nearly complete, with only the `body` parameter left unexplained.

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 should compensate, and it does well for url, method, and identities (including the default behavior). But `body` is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and description, which caps the score.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one URL as each identity and diff") and immediately names its security purpose ("the cross-tenant IDOR check"). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like zerodom_add_identity or zerodom_replay, which manipulate identities rather than compare responses across 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?

The stated goal — the cross-tenant IDOR check — provides clear context for when to reach for this tool, and the description explains the default identity set. However, it names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer that plain reads should use zerodom_read_page instead.

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