compare_answers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: local execution and no external provider calls, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any limitations like potential inaccuracies or boundary conditions.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words conveys core purpose and key behavioral constraint. No superfluous information; every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with two fully described parameters and good annotations, the description is largely complete. It clarifies local execution and no external calls, which is critical. Missing output format details, but given no output schema, the description is adequate for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds general context ('caller-provided answers', 'LOCALLY') but does not enhance parameter-specific semantics beyond what schema already provides. 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?

Description uses specific verb 'summarize' and resource 'agreement/differences between answers', and explicitly states 'LOCALLY — does not call any provider', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_model or claude_request that call external APIs.

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 implies usage for comparing answers without external calls via 'LOCALLY' and 'does not call any provider', but lacks explicit statements about when to use versus alternatives, or when not to use. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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