Check multilingual schema and freshness parity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds the freshness comparison aspect and @graph markup support, which is some additional context, but doesn't describe output format or how contrasts are reported. With strong annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action and scope; the second adds a useful compatibility note about @graph markup. Slightly more behavioral detail could be added without being verbose.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, inputs (via schema), and supported markup. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The main gap is not describing what the comparison output looks like, but for a non-mutating analysis tool with full annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'pages' parameter well (array, 2-20 items, each with locale and url). The description adds value by explaining what the tool does with those pages (compares schema and freshness), going beyond the raw schema definitions. With a single well-documented parameter, the description's conceptual framing is sufficient.

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 verb ('Compare'), the resources (Article and FAQPage JSON-LD plus dateModified freshness), and the scope (across translated versions of the same article). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being specific about multilingual schema/freshness parity, though it doesn't explicitly name a differentiating sibling tool. The 'Supports common @graph markup' note adds useful specificity.

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 implies usage context (comparing multilingual article versions for schema/freshness parity) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives. The '2 to 20 translated versions' constraint is helpful context for when this tool applies.

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