cases_compare

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool compares metadata, subjects, and procedures, and returns a divergence score between 0 and 1. This sufficiently discloses the behavior, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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 with no extraneous content. Front-loaded with the core action ('Compare multiple cases side-by-side') followed by specifics. Every sentence is 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (divergence score). It would be more complete if it also described the format of the side-by-side differences, but the core functionality is covered. The high schema coverage and clear parameters help.

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%, and the description adds value beyond schema by specifying that comparisons cover 'metadata, subjects, and procedures,' which are examples of what 'comparison_aspects' can include. This aids interpretation.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('multiple cases'), and explains the output (divergence score). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cases_get_similar by focusing on side-by-side comparison and explicit scoring.

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 use for comparing cases side-by-side but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like cases_get_similar for similarity search. Guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions.

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