compare_articles

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 that is front-loaded with the core idea. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections, which could improve scannability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the comparison, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%; the input schema already documents all parameters (law1, law2, apiKey) with descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the context of comparison, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the purpose clearly: 'compare two statute articles.' The verb 'compare' and resource 'articles' are specific. However, among sibling tools like compare_alio_articles, the description could be more explicit about what distinguishes this tool (e.g., comparing articles from two different laws).

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 vs. alternatives. Sibling tools include many comparison variants (e.g., compare_old_new, compare_alio_articles), but the description gives no criteria for selection.

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