compare_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Show' and transparently documents the default behavior for to_date ('current law if omitted'). It does not discuss edge cases or validation, but the output schema covers return-value details.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a tight Args block. Every line earns its place, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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?

All parameters are described with formats and defaults, the operation is clear, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. For a simple three-parameter comparison tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains all three parameters with formats ('YYYY-MM-DD'), a concrete citation example ('§ 163(j)'), and the meaningful default for to_date. This adds substantial value over the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show how a provision changed between two dates.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_irc_provision (current law) and search_tax_law (search), since the focus is temporal comparison of versions.

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 intended use case is implied by the description, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list shows nearby tools, but the description itself does not provide routing guidance.

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