justhandled_site_discovery_change_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the cost and network ('Costs $0.25 USDC on Base mainnet') and implies a comparison rather than a mutation, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output shape is, or how failures are surfaced.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core comparison purpose is front-loaded, and the cost/network detail is kept to a separate, terse sentence.

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?

For a tool with nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits return-value information, failure modes, prerequisites for valid snapshots, and guidance on when not to use this tool. The cost detail is useful but does not make the tool fully self-explanatory.

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%, and the description partially compensates by naming the compared evidence fields (robots, sitemap, canonical, title, structured-data) and clarifying that the two parameters are 'dated site snapshots.' However, it does not discuss the 'captured_at' or 'url' properties or the snapshot structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies the exact resource: normalized robots, sitemap, canonical, title, and structured-data evidence across two dated site snapshots. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling change-packet tools by naming the domain and scope.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have two dated site snapshots and need to compare their discovery-related evidence. However, it provides no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or references to alternative sibling tools for related comparison tasks.

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