sootool.policy_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the failure mode: insufficient arguments or a missing enacted version surfaces via an error field rather than throwing or returning empty. It does not describe the diff output structure, but an output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose first, then the two calling modes, then the error contract, then the sibling pointer. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers the essential calling modes and error behavior; only the meaning of the two required identity parameters is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains year_from, year_to, and draft_id modes well, but never clarifies what the required domain and name parameters identify. Partial compensation, not full.

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 concrete verb and resource — comparing segmental tax rates and major value changes between two policy versions — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sootool.policy_history by naming it for change history.

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 two explicit modes with the parameters that select them (year_from/year_to for cross-year comparison, draft_id for draft vs. enacted), and routes the alternative need (change history) to sootool.policy_history.

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