compare_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Changes nothing' is largely confirmatory. The description still adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing output shape ('one line each') and the equality behavior ('Says so when both have the same settings and lists'). It does not mention error behavior for unknown profile identifiers, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the compared facets, then usage, then the no-mutation guarantee. It is dense but has no filler; the second sentence packs several ideas together, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be specified, yet the description still summarizes the line-per-difference format. Combined with the diff scope, alternatives, and read-only guarantee, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both params ('first', 'second') are documented as ID-or-name in the schema, so baseline is 3. The parenthetical 'not the names' clarifies comparison scope rather than parameter syntax, adding only marginal meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two profiles), enumerates exactly which facets are diffed (security, privacy, parental control, denylist, allowlist, rewrites, settings), and explicitly excludes names. An agent can distinguish this from sibling 'profile' and 'profiles' without opening either schema.

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?

Names two concrete use cases (see how two profiles differ; verify a copy made with create_profile) and explicitly routes the alternative case to 'profile' for reading a single profile in full. Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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