compare_versions

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world hints. The description adds the meaningful caveat that no automatic legal-effect inference is performed, clarifying that output is comparative rather than a legal conclusion. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the caveat about legal-effect inference earns its place by preventing misinterpretation.

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?

With four required parameters, no output schema, and no property descriptions, the description should explain every input and the expected return. It covers purpose, version dates, and the no-legal-inference behavior, but omits text_ref and the return shape, leaving moderate gaps.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that article refers to the code title and that from_date/to_date identify the two versions, but text_ref is left entirely unexplained, leaving a significant 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?

States a specific action (compare), a specific resource (two dated versions of an article), and a constraint (exact code title). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_legal_version (which fetches a single version) and compare_evidence (which compares evidence).

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?

Provides clear context: use when you need to compare dated versions and you have the exact code title. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the exact-title condition implies the boundary with search-like tools.

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