compare_questionnaire_versions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only implies a read-only compare-and-summarize operation and notes API visibility, but it does not describe output format, failure modes, profile requirements, or whether anything is mutated.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices useful details for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a highly similar sibling tool, this description leaves out too much: parameter semantics, return shape, and when to prefer this over compare_questionnaire_version_schemas. It is minimally adequate but not complete for confident invocation.

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 never mentions either parameter. It does not clarify that questionnaire_id_or_title accepts an ID or title, nor what profile means, leaving an agent without any parameter-level guidance.

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 action: compare known questionnaire version metadata from Headquarters and summarize API-visible differences. It identifies the resource (questionnaire versions) and output type (a differences summary), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling compare_questionnaire_version_schemas.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_questionnaire_version_schemas or the export/combine tools. The description only says what it does; it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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