compare_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds the side-effect guarantee 'without rewriting a note' and the behavioral outcome 'flag reexamination,' which is useful context. However, it does not explain what the flag looks like or how the comparison result is presented.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key behavioral constraint. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only comparison, the description covers the main action and side-effect profile. Yet with no output schemaanding return shape, and with no explanation of what 'flag reexamination' means or how before/after IDs map to the comparison, some operational detail remains missing.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the before_id and after_id parameters beyond the contextual phrase 'two server-issued snapshots.' It leaves the exact format, source, and relationship of the IDs to inference, so the description does not adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Compare') and the resource ('two server-issued snapshots of one document'), and adds the specific purpose 'flag reexamination without rewriting a note.' This distinguishes it from a generic compare or search operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool—when comparing server-issued snapshots and flagging reexamination—but it does not state explicit conditions, exclusions, or mention alternative tools. The hint 'without rewriting a note' provides some context but does not fully guide selection among siblings like compare_versions.

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