compare_indexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the clash-checking behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about how shared vs index-specific differences are reported or that this is a pure computation over existing schedule data.

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 no filler — the core compare action comes first and the optional clash check is appended. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a five-parameter tool rather than merely concise.

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 tool with four required parameters and zero schema coverage the description omits the meaning and accepted forms of nearly every input. An agent could not reliably populate course_code, indexes, academic_year or semester from this text.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails it. Only the optional against_sessions ("supplied time slots") is hinted at; course_code, indexes, academic_year and the semester enum (including the "S" value) are given no meaning, format or cardinality guidance anywhere.

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 uses a specific verb ("Compare") plus the resources being compared ("shared and index-specific sessions"), which is more concrete than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near neighbours like find_matching_indexes or get_index_schedule, so sibling disambiguation is left to the agent.

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?

"optionally check clashes with supplied time slots" implies when the against_sessions parameter is relevant, which is genuine usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the obvious alternatives (find_matching_indexes, get_index_schedule) that an agent would weigh this against.

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