get_parity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' note is redundant. It adds value beyond annotations by specifying return semantics (per-sink counts and spread) and the interpretation of parity (OK when spread is zero), plus the multi-sink precondition. It does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The only redundancy is the final 'This tool is read-only' sentence, which duplicates annotation information; otherwise every sentence contributes to purpose, output, or prerequisites.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, return values, and prerequisites sufficiently. It does not address edge cases like behavior when fewer than two sinks are configured, but for a read-only comparison tool this is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds relevant context by stating the configuration requirement of two or more sinks, which is not a parameter but a usage condition.

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') and resource ('filing counts across configured sinks'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also names the key output ('per-sink counts and the spread') and the concept of parity, which distinguishes it from siblings like count_filings (aggregate counts) and verify_sinks (verification).

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 description gives clear context: use it to compare filing counts across two or more configured sinks, and it states a prerequisite (requires two or more configured sinks). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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