compare

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is a newly authored .docx, differences are rendered as tracked changes, and the source documents are never touched. It does not mention author/date defaults or collision behavior on the output path, but the core side-effect profile is disclosed.

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 three dense clauses and no filler; the artifact being created comes first, followed by the tracked-change semantics and the safety guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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 six-parameter file-producing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial facts: it creates a new file, differences become tracked changes, and inputs are untouched. Only the author/tag/date defaults and failure modes (e.g., output already exists) are left to the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (old, new, output, author, tag, date) including constraints like 'must not exist'. The description adds only the notion of two versions and non-modification of inputs, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 artifact: 'Write a new redline .docx from two versions', plus the defining behavior (every difference as a tracked change). An agent can tell exactly what it produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from a close sibling such as 'diff', leaving the comparison target implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The sentence 'the inputs are never modified' implies the safe comparison context but does not state when to pick this over siblings like 'diff', 'restore', or 'revisions_list'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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