Compare gallery versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and network profile. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond that: it discloses the specific diff surface (metadata fields plus namespaced tag additions/removals), which tells the agent what the operation actually computes. It omits rate-limit or auth context, but the safety profile is already covered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource lead, and the comparison dimensions follow immediately, so the agent gets the essential information first.

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 present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly against a fully documented schema. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to version-related siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, with before/after nested objects documented (gid constraints, token pattern) and the site enum explained including URL-override behavior. The description mentions 'two gallery versions' generically but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), resource ('two gallery versions'), and enumerates the exact dimensions compared (title, posted time, page count, file size, tag additions/removals). This makes the tool's function unambiguous. It stops short of naming or distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings like eh_find_latest_gallery_version or eh_get_gallery_chain, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot infer from the text whether this should be preferred over eh_get_gallery_chain or how the 'before'/'after' pair should be sourced. Only implied usage is present.

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