gateway_process_compare_with_yonote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral detail (e.g., what the comparison produces, whether it returns discrepancies, or any side effects). It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal context beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It clearly states the core action and object in minimal words.

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?

The tool has six parameters, all undocumented in the schema, and no description of their semantics. An output schema exists but is not described. The description is far too sparse for an agent to correctly construct a call, especially given the complexity of JSON parameters like systems_json and candidates_json.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, query, period_days, systems_json, candidates_json, project_ids_json). The agent has no guidance on what these inputs mean or how to format them, leaving the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 clear action (compare) with a specific resource (discovered process candidates vs Yonote pages). It is distinct from sibling tools like gateway_process_candidates_discover (which finds candidates) and gateway_company_get_source_of_truth (which likely retrieves pages), so an agent can tell it apart.

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 'discovered process candidates' implies it should be used after discovery, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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