compare_programmes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral signal: preserve evidence dates, conditions, coverage gaps and warnings, and that missing context never establishes eligibility. That's real context beyond annotations, though it explains output semantics rather than comparison mechanics or limits.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, so nothing is bloated. However, the second and third sentences are terse and cryptic, reading more like ritual disclaimers than clear guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But with four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no comparison-behavior detail, an agent lacks what it needs to call the tool with confidence in its arguments.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters. The description never explains ids (2-4 items), include='evidence', release, or scenario, so the agent gets no meaning for any parameter. This is the largest gap in the definition.

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 verb and resource: 'compare programmes'. The 'compare' verb distinguishes it from siblings like get_programme and list_programmes, though it doesn't name them explicitly. An agent can tell the operation apart, but not precisely which sibling it competes with.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_programme, list_programmes, or get_coverage. The 'missing context' sentence is a caveat about interpretation, not a when-to-use rule. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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