Compare Two Web Pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., JSON summary vs. raw diff). It hints at modes but doesn't explain their practical implications beyond brief labels.

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 front-loaded with core functionality, uses efficient sentences with zero waste, and structures information logically (purpose, modes, use cases). Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete: it covers purpose and modes well but misses behavioral transparency and output details, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke the tool effectively without further context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by listing mode options ('text', 'structure', 'full') and implying 'full' combines both, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond what the schema's enum and descriptions already provide for parameters.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('diff', 'get a summary') and resources ('two URLs', 'web pages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scrape_url' or 'get_metadata' by focusing on comparison rather than extraction or analysis of single pages.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('competitor monitoring, change detection, and verifying deployments'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'scrape_url' for single-page content extraction.

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