surveybridge_assess_comparability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: results are graded into block/caution/info severities and a pass is not a certification. However, it never states that the tool is read-only/non-mutating, whether it requires special permissions, or how the assessment is scoped.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, so it is concise. But the brevity comes at the cost of clarity — the first sentence is telegraphic ('Report block/caution/info checks') rather than front-loading a plain statement of what the tool does.

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 not be explained, but for a two-parameter assessment tool the description leaves both parameters unexplained and gives no usage context. An agent could call it on a project_id but would not know what indicator_ids does or how to interpret a 'block' result.

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 needed to explain project_id and the optional indicator_ids filter. It mentions neither, leaving the agent to infer that the check applies to a whole project and can be narrowed to specific indicators.

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 names an action ('Report') and an output vocabulary ('block/caution/info checks'), and the name supplies the missing verb+resource (assess comparability). But it never states what is being checked or over what scope (a project, its indicators), so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually evaluates without opening the schema.

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 statement of when to run this assessment versus the other surveybridge tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring indicators to exist first. The only guidance is an implicit caveat that passing checks does not certify publication comparability — useful but not routing guidance.

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