Compare a tool alias's declared origin

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations by disclosing that no tool is invoked, execution_authorized is always false, malformed JSON or transport limits produce a tool error with no report, and that the result is not proof of live server identity, SDK routing, completeness or authority. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to avoid over-trusting the comparison.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the inputs, then the status vocabulary, then the error and trust caveats — a logical progression with no filler. Some sentences are dense and comma-spliced, which costs a little readability.

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?

Enumerates all seven outcome statuses (UNCHANGED through INVALID_INPUT), explains the AMBIGUOUS rule for duplicate exposed names in either catalog, and points to the original zero-based indexes for inspection. With an output schema present, this is more than sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies one target_alias plus exact before/after rows containing server, original_name and exposed_name, and that supplied spelling and order are preserved. The phrase 'empty domain text returns INVALID_INPUT' is slightly unclear about which field counts as domain text, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource — comparing a tool alias's declared origin across supplied before/after catalogs — and the title/description pairing makes clear this is a diff over two snapshots rather than a live lookup. It is distinguishable from the sibling gooo_compare_saved_tool_definitions by operating on alias origin rows rather than saved definitions.

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 first sentence gives an explicit trigger: use before a tool-catalog update when an agent-selected exposed name may point to a different server or original function. That is a clear when-to-use condition, though no sibling alternative is named for the non-update case.

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