compare_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool runs new scans, compares existing scan results, requires prior scans, or returns a simple verdict versus detailed data. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 quickly conveys the core purpose and the practical use case. Every phrase adds value, and it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether it requires prior scans, or how the comparison is presented. For selecting and invoking correctly, an agent would still be uncertain about prerequisites and expected output.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that two URLs are compared. The parameter descriptions themselves are terse but adequate for simple URL inputs.

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 a specific action: compare the security posture of two URLs. It distinguishes the tool from single-URL siblings like scan_url and assess_risk by emphasizing the two-URL comparison, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 gives an explicit use case: evaluating which endpoint is safer. It implies the tool is for comparing two URLs rather than scanning or assessing one, providing clear contextual guidance without naming alternatives or exclusions.

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