compare_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool computes a diff and returns structured results, but it does not explicitly state it has no side effects (e.g., read-only status). The behavior is implicitly non-destructive but not explicitly confirmed.

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 structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by details on parameters and returns. It is informative but slightly verbose; the argument description could be more compact without losing clarity.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema (implied), the description covers essential aspects: input format, expected output fields (row_delta, col_delta, column_diffs, duplicate_delta, human_summary). It could be slightly more explicit about return types or edge cases.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions). The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'before_profile: JSON string from profile_dataset()...' and similarly for after_profile. It adds meaning beyond the schema titles, specifying the source and format.

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's purpose: 'Compare two dataset profiles and produce a side-by-side diff.' It identifies the specific resource (dataset profiles from profile_dataset()) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like profile_dataset by focusing on comparison.

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 instructs users to pass JSON strings from profile_dataset() for original and cleaned files, providing clear context on when to use the tool. It implicitly suggests using it after profiling, though it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or list alternative tools.

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