Compare two configurations over the same seeds

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the paired-seed rationale, the artifact list returned, and the count cap. It does not contradict the annotation, and the added detail goes beyond what readOnlyHint alone provides.

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?

Three sentences, all high-signal: purpose and output list in the first, a concrete use case in the second, and the operational limit in the third. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of telling the caller what will be returned. It also explains the experimental design, gives a representative use case, and caps the seed count. Combined with the highly detailed input schema, an agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 all parameter semantics are already documented in the input schema. The description's references to same consecutive seeds and max count of 500 largely restate schema constraints rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Run two CONFIG variants over the SAME consecutive seed range') and clearly identifies the tool's resource and experimental design. It also enumerates the concrete outputs (aggregate statistics, paired deltas, flipped seeds, plain-language summary), making it easy to distinguish from single-run or unpaired sweep tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for doctrine questions and explains why the paired same-seed design is appropriate ('terrain and emplacement luck cancel out'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as run_engagement or sweep_seeds or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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