reports_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context about the comparison semantics ('retaining coverage differences and unproven remediation states'), which tells the agent what the diff preserves rather than normalizes away. It remains terse and jargon-heavy, and says nothing about cost or ordering of the two inputs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the retention clause follows. The dense phrasing ('unproven remediation states') is compact but requires domain familiarity.

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 need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Still, for a two-required-parameter comparison tool with zero schema coverage, the definition omits where the IDs originate and how the two inputs are ordered, leaving a real gap an agent would hit.

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, and it partially does by establishing that both parameters are report IDs ('exact report IDs'). However, it does not clarify the before/after ordering semantics, ID format, or whether the IDs must come from the same target, leaving the bare 'Before'/'After' schema titles to carry the rest.

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 (Compare) and resource (report IDs), and 'exact report IDs' distinguishes it from the filter-based reports_list / reports_get siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stating where the two IDs come from, and no mention of alternatives such as reports_get for inspecting a single report. The agent must infer that this tool is selected whenever two known report IDs need a diff.

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