compare_authorization

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it replays requests without changing IDs or data, and does so twice. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authorization requirements, side effects, or constraints like rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the core action. However, it excludes necessary details for a tool with 9 parameters, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 (9 params, 7 required, 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It omits parameter explanations, output schema context, and operational details, forcing agents to rely on guessing or external knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly references 'owner_profile' and 'comparison_profiles', leaving 7 of 9 parameters (including session_id, surface_run_id, endpoint_index) unexplained. Agents cannot infer their purpose or valid values.

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 clearly states the action (replay a GET request) and its specifics (as owner and 1-3 profiles, twice, without modifying data). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on authorization comparison through replay.

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 over siblings like 'scan_high_signal' or 'register_auth_profiles'. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid, leaving agents to infer usage context.

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