compare_drift

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, return behavior, or what 'absence remains suspected or unknown' means operationally. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotations imply.

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, brief sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. However, the second clause ('absence remains suspected or unknown') is vague and could be more precise without adding length. Overall it earns its place but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, but the tool's role in the broader workflow is not articulated. Given the large sibling set (create_audit, extract_claims, adjudicate_drift, etc.), there is no statement about when compare_drift should be invoked or how the 'absence' concept fits into the drift detection flow. The description is too sparse for this context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'audit_id', with a clear description ('Identifier returned by create_audit'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('normalized claims and facts'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'extract_claims' and 'extract_facts' that are about extraction, and 'adjudicate_drift' that implies decision-making. However, the phrase 'absence remains suspected or unknown' is cryptic and does not clearly explain the tool's exact output or role.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an existing audit or extracted data. The workflow position is only implied by the tool name and the 'audit_id' parameter being returned by 'create_audit', but no direct comparison with siblings is given.

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