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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (per-dimension score/max, total, grade, assessment level), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how many slugs are allowed, cost/rate limits, or how missing or invalid slugs are handled.

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?

Two tight sentences with the axis constraint front-loaded and the output shape in the second position. No filler; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do all the work. It partially compensates by sketching the return fields, but with an undocumented required 'slugs' parameter and no behavioral constraints, an agent still lacks everything needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, and the description only explains 'axis' by naming its two accepted values ('freedom' or 'returns') — real value beyond the bare string schema. The required 'slugs' array, its format, and any length or validity constraints are never addressed.

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) and resource (projects) and scopes it to one axis with named values 'freedom' or 'returns'. This clearly separates it from single-project siblings like get_project_assessment, though the divergence from get_freedom_breakdown / get_returns_breakdown is left implicit.

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 phrase 'so an agent can rank them like-for-like' implies the use case (relative ranking across projects) but never states when this tool should be chosen over get_project_assessment or the per-axis breakdown tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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