compare_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It details the output structure (field-major view, columns per agency, numeric spread), which goes beyond the name. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a comparison tool the absence of mutation claims is acceptable given the query-like purpose.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the action and output format; the second provides the usage condition. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one input parameter), the existence of an output schema, and the description that explains both the input's meaning and the output's structure, nothing critical is missing. It fully equips an agent to understand when and how to call it.

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 single parameter canonical_id. Although it never explicitly defines the parameter, the phrases 'for one event' and 'a specific earthquake' clearly imply that canonical_id identifies the event. This is sufficient for a single, obvious parameter.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('compare'), resource ('agency reports for one event'), and the output (field-major view with per-agency columns and numeric spread). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_discrepancies by focusing on explaining disagreements, not just listing them.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when an agent needs to explain *why* sources disagree on a specific earthquake', providing a clear context. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when NOT to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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