compare_mocks

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

The description declares the tool is read-only, explains behavior when mocks are not found ('Returns found=false with missing ids'), and describes forceRefresh effect. Without annotations, this is strong transparency, though slight ambiguity in 'refresh the list'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value, including usage guidance and return behavior.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return states (found=false, structured diff). For a 3-parameter tool with no nested objects, this is complete enough, though slightly more detail on the diff structure would push to 5.

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 100% but description adds value by clarifying idA/idB accept 'mock id, compositeId, or exact title' and explaining forceRefresh refreshes cache. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool compares two completed Medify UCAT mocks section-by-section and by cognitive total. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('mocks') and distinguishes from siblings by referencing analyze_score_trends and get_mock_details.

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 clearly says 'Use when the user names two sits (ids or titles)' and provides explicit alternatives: 'For overall history use analyze_score_trends; for one mock use get_mock_details.' It also explains input acceptance (ids, compositeId, titles).

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