compare_amendment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that uploading triggers an analysis that must be waited on and returns conflict counts by severity, but it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether uploading an amendment persists or modifies data, and any rate or failure behavior.

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 output content is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter modes follow. It is dense but every clause carries information; the second sentence is long but functional. No filler sentences.

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?

Six parameters with one required and an output schema that already covers return values, so the description need not detail results. It correctly covers the main invocation modes, but slightly over-describes outputs it didn't need to and leaves wait_seconds/analysis-timing behavior to the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the per-parameter schema text by tying file_path, signed_date and amendment_id into mutually exclusive modes ('neither for all of the contract's amendments'), which adds real meaning about how the parameters combine. It does not, however, explain wait_seconds semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it compares a contract's amendments against the base contract and returns conflicts categorized by base clause, direction (against us / in our favour) and severity (red/yellow/green). It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions the sibling analyze_contract, so differentiation from neighbors is left to inference.

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 gives explicit operational routing: 'Give file_path and signed_date to upload a new amendment and wait for its analysis; amendment_id for one amendment; neither for all of the contract's amendments.' That is clear guidance on invocation modes, though it offers no when-to-use-vs-analyze_contract guidance or prerequisite/exclusion conditions.

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