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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something the annotations do not: that each returned value is attributed to its source page, which tells the agent the output is citation-bearing provenance 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope and followed by the output shape. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 single-parameter, read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (field-by-field values with per-value source attribution). Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent.

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% and minItems/maxItems already encode the 2-10 range, so the description's restatement of 'two to ten' adds nothing. The example ID format is already present in the schema description, making this baseline rather than additive.

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?

States a specific verb (compare), resource (products/drinks), cardinality (two to ten), and result shape (field by field, with source page per value). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_record and search_drinks, which fetch rather than compare.

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 two-to-ten framing implies the intended comparison use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_record or search_drinks, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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