compare_baseline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no side effects. The description adds context that the baseline is a policy object, not a prior scan, and clarifies drift tracking should use analyze_drift. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could further detail caching behavior or error handling.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence provides usage guidelines and alternatives. Highly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks information about output format or what the compliance result looks like, but remains sufficient for an agent to determine when to use the tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description mentions 'fixed policy baseline' but does not add additional parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. The nested 'baseline' object is well-documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool compares a domain's current security configuration against a fixed policy baseline to determine compliance. It uses specific verbs ('compare') and resources, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_drift and compare_domains.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('check whether a domain meets a policy requirement') and when not to use it ('not for tracking improvement/regression over time' or 'comparing multiple domains'), directing to alternatives (analyze_drift, compare_domains).

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