compare_project_audits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine behavioral context: missing pages are not counted as resolved, and mismatched crawl settings invalidate the comparison. That is meaningful beyond the schema, though return value/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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?

Two terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the main action leads and constraints follow. Slightly dense and fragmentary, but every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description handles edge cases well but omits prerequisites (how to obtain baseline/current snapshot ids, presumably via list_project_audits) and says nothing about the comparison output.

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% for all three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It never explains the roles of project_id, baseline_id, or current_id, nor that ids must reference retained snapshots — a real gap for a comparison tool.

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) and resource (two retained project snapshots), which distinguishes it from compare_seo_audits and compare_search_periods by scope. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Gives partial constraints on when comparison is valid (differing crawl settings cannot be compared) but offers no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling compare_* tools, or where the required snapshot ids come from. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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