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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies what is compared (ratings, services, BezalRank, profile status), which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, error handling, or explicitly confirm that it's a read-only operation. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, limit, and comparison fields with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could mention what the response looks like or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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% for the single parameter (business_ids), and the schema already provides a clear description and constraints (UUID array, 1-5 items). The tool description adds context about comparison dimensions but no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it matches the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource 'businesses' and scope 'up to 5', and lists the comparison dimensions (ratings, services, BezalRank, profile status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business (single business) and search_businesses (search).

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 when to use the tool: when you need a side-by-side comparison of multiple businesses. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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