compare_corpora

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific comparison dimensions, which is a form of scoping that slightly goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., output format, performance, rate limits) and is mostly a restatement of purpose.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core verb and resource, and lists the key comparison dimensions efficiently. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (so return values are presumably documented elsewhere). However, the description leaves the exact meaning of 'corpora' strings ambiguous and offers no connection to sibling tools like list_corpora for obtaining valid values. It is functional but not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'corpora' parameter. While the tool name and description imply that each string is a corpus identifier, it doesn't clarify whether these are names, IDs, or paths, nor how to obtain them. This is minimal added meaning over the raw schema type.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare') and a specific resource ('corpora') with enumerated dimensions (variant quality, provenance, licence, benchmark status). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'corpus_stats' which might also cover some of these dimensions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_corpora or corpus_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'compare'.

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