preference_pairs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that off-rubric packs are withheld by default and reported in `withheld`, and notes the licence fine/relevance caveat for hidden packs. However, it doesn't describe the output structure beyond the `withheld` field or clarify what 'restricted' packs mean for returned data.

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 a single tight sentence that conveys core purpose plus an important default behavior (withholding off-rubric packs). No wasted words. The parameter descriptions in schema carry the detail. Could arguably be slightly richer but earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no enums, no output schema, and no annotations - so the description needs to cover a fair amount of behavioral ground. It explains the default withholding behavior and the `withheld` reporting field. The sibling context (search_humor, top_rated, breakdown) suggests this is a specialized comparison tool, and the description sets it apart reasonably well given the constraints.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that naming a source pack 'overrides both gates below,' and clarifies the 'empty query = browse by score' behavior. It also explains the hidden/restricted filters in plain language, going beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 returns chosen vs rejected pairs from head-to-head comparisons, with a mechanism for off-rubric packs being withheld. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'what won head-to-head and what lost' phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like top_rated or search_humor. However it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 browsing by score when no query, and mentions off-rubric packs are 'withheld by default.' The filter semantics of the parameters (source overriding gates, include_hidden, include_restricted) are present in the schema descriptions. It gives clear context for when to use, though it doesn't name explicit alternatives among the siblings.

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