diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the four result buckets and flagging that 'similar' entries require human judgment, which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return structure following immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 must carry return-value meaning, and it does list the four buckets. However, it never states the direction of the diff (missing from which side) or what distinguishes 'missing' from 'toUpdate', leaving a real ambiguity for a comparison tool.

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% and the single section parameter has an exhaustive enum, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no semantics about the section filter, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb (compare) and both resources (CvLAC vs portfolio), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly name the sibling sync or explain how this differs from it, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: comparison-before-action, with 'a human decides' hinting at decision support rather than automated sync. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over sync or when not to use it.

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