Diff provision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior detail the annotations cannot: the exact baseline and target versions being compared, the role of the Omnibus amending act, and that changes are reported as a word-level diff.

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 dense sentence with the compared-version identifiers front-loaded and the result taxonomy trailing after the colon. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical version identifiers make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the possible return categories and flags the word-diff modality. It does not describe the shape of the diff payload or how 'moved' is represented, but for a read-only two-parameter tool this is largely sufficient.

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 'id' (node id or citation) and the en/de 'lang' enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (diff/what happened), a specific resource (a provision), and pins the two compared versions by their exact identifiers (32024R1689 vs 02024R1689-20260727) plus the amending act. It also enumerates the outcome space (unchanged, changed with word diff, added, removed, moved), which cleanly separates it from aiact_get_provision.

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 comparison intent strongly implies when to use it (to see version-to-version changes rather than fetch content), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative. The guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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