compare_anomaly

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

The description discloses that the tool returns band_position values across 5 dimensions and that it costs DAC, which are behavioral traits not present in the schema. It does not detail the payment challenge flow, but that is covered in the payment_signature parameter description.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose, output, and cost, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 description, combined with the fully descriptive schema, gives enough information to invoke the tool: it specifies the input (decision ID), optional window, and the expected output format. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear description of the return value. Some details like payment challenge are in the param description, making the overall definition complete.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the schema coverage is 100%. The main description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to.

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 ('your decisions against your accumulated pattern'), and specifies the exact output dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like observe_pattern or get_environment_anomaly.

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 states the tool is used to compare a decision to the accumulated pattern, implying it's appropriate when you have a decision ID and need an anomaly classification. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over similar tools.

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