compare_audits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the meaningful constraint that both audits must belong to the same target, but says nothing about what is compared (which evidence fields), how differences are surfaced, or ordering assumptions.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though its brevity leaves the ordering semantics unresolved.

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 explained. Still, with 0% schema description coverage the definition should clarify parameter ordering and what 'evidence status' denotes; as written it is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 coverage is 0%: both before_audit_id and after_audit_id are undocumented in the schema. The description alludes to temporal ordering via 'changes' but never states that before_audit_id is the earlier audit or how the two IDs relate to the same target, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Compare') plus resource ('evidence status changes') and an explicit scope constraint ('for the same target registration'). This clearly separates it from siblings like audit_target or get_hardening_guide, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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 phrase 'for the same target registration' implies a usage precondition and rules out comparing audits of different targets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no when-not guidance, and no named alternative, so usage must be inferred.

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