diff_data_health_radar

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it's a pure function, returns specific delta types, uses a 3-point threshold, and expects the radar sub-field. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences convey purpose, input format, and output details with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers input requirements, return values (per-axis deltas, composite, grade change, lists, verdict), and threshold. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema only describes parameters as 'object'. The description adds crucial meaning by instructing to pass the radar sub-field from two data_health_radar responses, making the expected input exact.

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 diffs two data_health_radar payloads, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like data_health_radar (which generates the payload) and get_schema_drift (which compares schemas) by focusing on radar payload comparison.

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 provides clear context: pass the radar sub-field from two data_health_radar responses, with an example (yesterday vs today). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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