compare_descriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what format the results come in (list of sentences? structured data?), whether there are limitations (max results, processing time), what happens with ambiguous terms, or how it handles different document contexts. The description is functional but lacks operational transparency.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality with specific examples of grammatical markers. The second sentence provides the value proposition ('Helps identify inconsistent descriptions'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address critical context: what the output looks like (crucial since there's no output schema), performance characteristics, error conditions, or how it integrates with the document system implied by sibling tools. The description explains what but not how or what results to expect.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'term' clearly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example terms ('Sarah', 'the house') which slightly enhance understanding, but doesn't explain nuances like case sensitivity, partial matching, or special character handling. With complete schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all descriptive sentences for a term' with specific grammatical indicators ('was', 'had', 'looked', etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_all_mentions' or 'search_content' by focusing specifically on descriptive sentences rather than general mentions or content searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the purpose but doesn't indicate when this specific descriptive sentence extraction is preferred over sibling tools like 'find_all_mentions' (which might find all mentions) or 'search_content' (which might do broader searches). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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