Dossier Compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the task is asynchronous, and enumerates enforced comparison semantics (mere non-mention ≠ opposition, conflicting conclusions require dual citations, reprints merged, reports not double-counted). It omits auth requirements and failure/error behavior, so not a 5.

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, followed by enforced rules and the parameter note. Dense but each clause adds substance; no filler sentences, though the rule block is somewhat terse in phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. For a 3-param async tool with no annotations, the description covers the async nature and the key validation rules; gaps remain on how to retrieve results (delegated to siblings) and on research_id/questions format.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It ably explains 'statements' (host AI's pre-formed comparison draft via HostStatementInput, merged and validated against NotebookLM results), but leaves 'research_id' and 'questions' undefined beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (compare source viewpoints by common questions) and the concrete output (consensus/differences/gaps). The parenthetical '后台任务，返回任务号' (background task, returns task number) distinguishes it from synchronous siblings like dossier_result, so an agent can route to it correctly.

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 'background task, returns a task number' note implies the async flow (call, then poll status/result), which is useful usage context. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-to-use vs dossier_query/dossier_evidence guidance, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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