Compare Match Scores

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the diff taxonomy (absent→matched, skills-list-only→dual, decayed→recent) and the lazy behavior 'computes any missing phase row on demand'. That last clause hints at an on-demand computation/persistence step that annotations alone would not reveal.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison purpose and followed by the supporting detail. No filler; the second sentence about computing missing rows earns its place by adding behavior not present elsewhere.

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 output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (composite/per-layer deltas, per-skill diff) and the on-demand computation behavior. For a one-parameter read tool the only real gaps are the absent usage guidance and parameter documentation.

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% and the description never mentions application_id, so it does not compensate for the gap. However, the single parameter is self-documenting by name with no format or syntax nuance to explain, so the omission is low-cost.

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 resource (before/after match scores) and even enumerates the output components: composite and per-layer deltas plus a per-skill diff. It is clearly distinguishable from score_ats (which produces a single score) by the 'before/after' framing, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 'before/after' framing implies the scenario (comparing an application's match state across phases), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing versus score_ats or explore_ats_over_time. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.

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