compare_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does so effectively by stating that both texts, character count differences, new keywords, and disappeared keywords are returned, and by noting the default section key. It doesn't discuss side effects or auth, but for a comparison/read tool this is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured with separate Args/Returns sections. The example adds context without redundancy. It earns its place, though a slightly more explicit usage scenario could make it even more actionable.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema existing), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values, making it mostly self-contained. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in the described use case.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting all three parameters in the Args section: doc_id_1 as source, doc_id_2 as target, and section with a default of risk_factors. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema property 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?

The description specifies a clear verb+resource: '2つの書類の同一セクションを比較します' (compare the same section of two documents) with a concrete example (prior vs current risk description). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filing_section, which retrieves a single section.

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 an example of when to use: comparing the same section across two documents (e.g., prior period vs current period). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose itself differentiates it from related tools.

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