Compare Article Translations

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the output format (compact table with statuses), the meaning of each status, and a key caveat about the 'different' status being a size signal only. This supplements the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint 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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, output, and usage notes. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action followed by supporting details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (table with statuses per section) and covers input parameters implicitly. It also addresses edge cases (missing sections) and provides a critical interpretation warning, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool's purpose: comparing section structure between two locales of the same article, matched by index. It specifies the verb (compare), the resource (section structure), and the matching method, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_article or list_article_translations.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('useful to spot structurally stale or missing sections') and warns against misinterpreting the 'different' status as an edit regression. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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