What changed between PAM exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output ordering ('changes that need attention come first') and defines what counts as needing attention, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it is silent on prerequisites (a previous export must exist), the assumed comparison baseline/timeframe, and pagination behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core comparison is front-loaded, the prioritization rule follows immediately, and the optional scoping parameter is mentioned last. Every sentence adds information with no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does much of the heavy lifting by describing what changes are returned and their ordering, which effectively substitutes for a return-value spec. It falls short only on operational details such as the prerequisite of an existing prior export and how limits/pagination are applied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by defining 'needs attention' (shortened dates, removed dates, status now customer-specific/extended/out of maintenance), which makes onlyNeedsAttention interpretable, and by clarifying that systems is an optional free-text focus list.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (current vs. previous PAM export) and enumerates the exact change categories reported: new/removed listings, extended/shortened maintenance dates, and status changes. This is clearly distinct from siblings like pam_expiring or pam_summary without needing to open a 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?

The phrase 'compare the current PAM export with the previous one' implies the usage context, and 'optionally focus on a list of systems' hints at scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer pam_expiring over this).

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