compare

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: directional violation detection (only missing from state_b triggers), verbatim case-insensitive substring matching, return of 8-value status (only 4 emitted), and heuristic nature. No contradictions.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose (5 sentences). Each sentence adds value, but some pruning (e.g., combining anchor rules) could improve conciseness while maintaining clarity.

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 complexity (anchor tracking, directional violations, heuristic nature), the description covers key aspects. Output schema exists but is not shown; however, the description mentions return values sufficiently. The remaining 4 status values are not explained, but this is likely covered by output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds rich meaning: state_a is earlier, state_b later; anchors track specific items with detailed matching rules and violation semantics. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Surface drift between two text states of the SAME decision object.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_stance and compare_commitment by focusing on text state comparison and anchor tracking.

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?

Provides context on when to use (detecting drift between same object) and how anchors work. Implicitly advises not to treat as sole gate via 'Heuristic, not a semantic judge; a drift signal, not a sole gate.' However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations beyond siblings listed.

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