compare_candidate_moves

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that all moves share one 'search profile' for fair comparison, but does not disclose cost/compute intensity, whether the call is synchronous or job-based, permission needs, or what 'profile' means behaviorally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint ('up to eight') arrives early. It is efficient, though the compression leaves real ambiguity unresolved.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration. However, for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a non-trivial history/profile model, the one-line description leaves essential invocation details missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It touches two of four parameters indirectly ('up to eight ... moves', 'search profile'), but leaves the required 'fen' string and the 'history' array completely unexplained and gives no hint of valid profile values.

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 — 'analyze and compare ... candidate moves' — with the notable scope detail 'up to eight' and 'under the same search profile'. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like assess_candidate_move or evaluate_move, which sound like near-overlapping evaluations.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite several sibling tools that evaluate individual moves. The phrase 'compare ... under the same search profile' implies batch comparison, but the agent must infer the selection condition itself.

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