compare_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the framing that the operation is a cross-case side-by-side comparison rather than a single-case read; it says nothing about the shape of the comparison output or cost of comparing many cases. Modest added value beyond annotations.

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 short clause — nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise-in-a-good-way, and it lacks a leading verb to anchor the action.

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?

There is no output schema and 0% schema description coverage on two parameters, so the description is the only place to explain inputs and returns — and it explains neither. For a comparison tool that can be run against arbitrary case sets, this leaves the agent guessing about required input shape and what 'gates' and 'key numbers' mean.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does not. 'several cases' loosely signals that case_ids should be multiple entries, but nothing explains the language enum (ja/en/zh) or its default, nor any constraints on case_ids content.

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 identifies the resource ('parameters, gates and key numbers of several cases') and implies a comparison action, but it is written as a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the agent must infer that the tool performs a side-by-side diff. It does partially distinguish from siblings like list_cases or describe_case by emphasizing multi-case comparison, but the distinction is indirect.

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?

'(e.g. a parameter study)' is the only usage signal, hinting at the parameter-sweep scenario. There is no statement of when to prefer this over describe_case or get_results, no minimum number of cases, and no exclusions.

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