Compare two conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool scores transcripts and computes differences, which implies a read-only analysis operation. However, it does not disclose details like input format requirements (inline text vs file path) or return structure. The behavior is reasonably transparent for a simple comparison tool but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: the first explains the function, the second gives example use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information. Every word 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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only purpose and use cases. It omits critical details such as how transcripts are supplied (inline vs path), what the side-by-side output looks like, and which indicators are supported. The tool is moderately complex, so this level of incompleteness is a significant gap.

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 low (29% for label_a and label_b), and the description adds limited parameter guidance. It mentions 'two transcripts' and 'each indicator,' but does not clarify the relationship between transcript_a and transcript_a_path or the available indicator values. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Score two transcripts and lay them side by side with the difference on each indicator.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the sibling tool score_conversation, which handles a single transcript.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for before/after comparisons: the same group early and late in a program, one workshop format against another, or a facilitator's first session against their tenth.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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