Compare two contracts to reveal clause types exclusive to each and differences in risk flags, clarifying where the agreements diverge.
Compare two loaded contracts: which clause types each one has that the other lacks, and how their risk flags differ.
Args: doc_id_a: doc_id of the first contract. doc_id_b: doc_id of the second contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id_a | Yes | ||
| doc_id_b | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently describes what the operation reports—clause-type gaps in both directions and risk flag differences—and 'compare' implies a non-mutating read. But it does not explicitly state that documents are unchanged, whether prior flag_risks processing is required, or how errors are surfaced.
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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the complete purpose and output, followed by a short parameter list. There is no filler, and the structure makes the key behavioral details immediately visible.
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 tool is moderately simple and has no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain both output and preconditions. It clearly explains what the comparison returns and implies the docs must already be loaded, but it does not describe the return format, how risk flags are expected to be present, or what happens when a document is missing.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args block provides the necessary compensation by identifying doc_id_a and doc_id_b as the identifiers of the first and second contract being compared. This adds ordering semantics, but it omits details like how to obtain valid doc_ids, which would be useful since no parameter descriptions exist 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 states a clear verb and resource: comparing two loaded contracts. It also specifies the exact comparison dimensions—which clause types each contract lacks relative to the other, and how risk flags differ—making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like summarize_contract or missing_clauses.
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 phrase 'loaded contracts' implies the important precondition that documents must already be loaded, so an agent can infer this pairs with load_contract. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings like missing_clauses, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.