compare_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the constraint that records must be 'distinct' and that they are in a 'pinned catalog', which is useful context beyond the annotations. No behavioral contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it is terse and lacks necessary parameter details. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has two parameters (one required) and an output schema, but the description provides no guidance on how to populate the required 'ids' array or the optional 'snapshot'. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly without additional knowledge, despite the annotations covering safety. The description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 'ids' and 'snapshot' parameters. It does not explain what 'ids' should contain (server identifiers), the expected array length, or what 'snapshot' refers to. The phrase 'two to four distinct local server records' only hints at the ids count but does not clarify the parameter itself.

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 a clear resource ('local server records in a pinned catalog'), and it bounds the operation to two to four distinct records. While it does not explicitly name the sibling tool, the verb 'compare' clearly distinguishes it from 'search_servers', so purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the verb and object — this tool is for comparing existing server records, not searching. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'search_servers', nor any exclusions (e.g., 'use search_servers to find, then compare here').

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