Compare Article Translations

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the output format (compact table with statuses), the meaning of each status, and that 'different' is a size signal. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements without contradiction.

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 dense paragraph that conveys all necessary information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides details in a logical order. Slightly could be split into sentences for better readability, but overall concise.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (compact table with statuses) and the meaning of each status. It does not describe the exact table structure but covers the essential behavioral aspects, making it sufficiently 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states it compares section structure between two locales of the same article, matched by index, and returns a table with statuses. This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_article_translation or get_article.

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 explains it is useful for spotting structurally stale or missing sections and cautions not to interpret 'different' as an edit regression. It provides context on when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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