review_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Reads the files only' (no project state is mutated) and 'using matching export settings' (how the comparison is scoped), plus the caveat that a better measurement is not producer approval. It does not describe return format or limits, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope ('reads files only'), behavior ('matching export settings'), and the approval caveat. Four short sentences, all earning their place, with no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies the objective-scoping context and the approval caveat an agent needs to call this correctly, leaving only minor gaps such as how mismatched export settings are handled.

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 request object is documented as 'Review Session, the distinct aligned before and after assets, and the revision objective,' so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds only marginal detail (matching export settings) and does not extend semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare the bounces before and after a revision against its objective,' which tells an agent exactly what operation is performed and on what. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest-looking sibling, audio_compare_files, so it stops 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?

It establishes the context (comparing pre/post-revision bounces against the objective) and routes the adjacent action to a named sibling: 'ask the user and record it with review_record_feedback.' That is clear context plus a related-tool hand-off, though it does not spell out when-not-to-use or a direct alternative for the comparison itself.

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