Grounded Concept Comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'retrieve evidence' aligns with this read-only behavior, so no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond the annotations—no details on limitations, return format, or edge cases.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core function, though brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-liner is insufficient. It gives a high-level idea but omits how to specify comparison focus, result limits, or what 'evidence' means in practice.

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 provides no information about the five parameters (conceptA, conceptB, top, candidates, compareFocus). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter behavior entirely undocumented.

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 ('retrieve evidence') and identifies the resource ('comparing two concepts'). This distinguishes it from siblings like rag_query or textbook_qa, though the phrase 'across clear dimensions' is vague about what those dimensions are.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rag_query or textbook_qa. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the basic purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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