compare_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important non-obvious behavior: the tool follows product renames and spans them where name-based search would not. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only or what happens when no versions match, but the comparison semantics are clear from the description.

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?

Three focused sentences: what the tool does, when to use it, and a relevant caveat. The most useful routing information is front-loaded, and no space is wasted on redundant restatements of the schema or annotations.

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 parameter schema fully documents all four parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides the missing contextual pieces: use-case triggers, relationship to `search_docs`, and rename-following behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool and what parameters mean in context.

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 extra semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that renamed products (e.g., App Builder becoming Studio) are followed, which directly informs how `product` and `versions` parameters should be interpreted.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('how one documentation topic differs between product versions, section by section'), making the core function immediately clear. It also references sibling `search_docs` and its `version_ambiguous` output, which differentiates this tool from related search/fetch tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: use for 'this worked in version N but not N+1' questions and before answering when `search_docs` set `version_ambiguous`. This tells the agent exactly the triggering conditions and distinguishes the tool from alternatives.

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