drift_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds useful context: 17 rules with severity tiers, old/new values, recommended actions, no Google API calls, and the CRUX_API_KEY dependency. It still does not state read-only safety explicitly or describe auth/rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 definition is front-loaded and mostly efficient, with the core purpose and prerequisite stated early. The attribution line about claude-seo/Dan Colta/MIT does not help an agent invoke the tool and is the main non-essential sentence.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description explains the comparison rules, severity model, and CWV dependency well. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves baseline_id and skip_cwv insufficiently explained, so the definition is only partially complete.

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 must explain the three parameters. It implies the URL is the target and hints at CRUX/CWV behavior, but it never explains baseline_id or skip_cwv, leaving key parameters semantically undocumented.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: comparing current page state against a stored baseline to report SEO drift. It clearly distinguishes the tool from general page-analysis siblings by focusing on baseline comparison and drift findings.

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 explicitly says to call drift_baseline first if no baseline exists for the URL, giving a clear prerequisite. It also notes that CWV comparison requires CRUX_API_KEY and is skipped otherwise, but it does not describe when not to use this tool or name alternative drift tools.

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