compare_documents

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

With no annotations supplied, the description fully discloses key behaviors: local disk reading, upload to Differino, 45 MB limit, signed URL uploads, credit consumption, async status, and polling. It also explains what each mode returns, including page images and metadata.

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 appropriately detailed without fluff; each sentence adds a distinct fact. The first sentence defines purpose, followed by upload process, size, modes, async handling, and cost—logical flow.

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 no output schema or annotations, this description covers all essential operational aspects: file types, size, modes, polling behavior, and credit consumption. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool successfully.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for comparison_mode by linking 'visual' to a full manifest with page images and 'text' to faster text-only output, plus file size limits beyond the schema. This elevates the value.

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?

Clearly states a specific action: 'Compare two documents (PDF, DOCX, or TXT) and see the differences.' It names supported file types, mentions upload to Differino, and distinguishes from siblings by implying it creates a new comparison rather than retrieving existing ones.

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?

Provides explicit mode guidance (visual vs text) and directs the agent to poll get_comparison when status is 'processing.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_text_diff or list_comparisons, despite the workflow being implied.

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