compare_evaluation_handbook_years

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching and change tracking but does not disclose the output format, whether it returns diff or aggregated results, authentication needs, or any side effects.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. No wasted words, though additional details could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand the input requirements and expected output, especially for a tool that compares data across years.

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 description does not explain any parameter meaning. The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only provides the tool's high-level purpose. There is no clarification on 'query', 'year_a', 'year_b', or 'limit'.

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 searches for the same keyword across handbooks from two years, with a hint of change tracking. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_evaluation_handbook' which likely handles a single year. However, the purpose could be more explicit about the comparison output.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The sibling tool 'search_evaluation_handbook' is not mentioned, and the description lacks context about usage scenarios beyond 'assist change tracking.'

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