Compare two or more products side by side. Use when the user asks to compare, says 'X vs Y', or wants to decide between options. Do not use for single product lookup — use get_product instead. Returns structured comparison with shared attributes, differences, tradeoffs, and a decision hint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes | Product titles or SKUs to compare (e.g. ['MIRA', 'CryoSculpt']) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (shared attributes, differences, tradeoffs, decision hint), which is useful for an agent. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the description efficiently covers usage guidance and output without redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value. For a simple comparison tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description is complete and covers all necessary aspects.
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 the parameter 'products' is well-described in the schema (array of strings, min/max items, description). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Compare two or more products side by side', specifying the action (compare) and resource (products). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by directing single product lookups to get_product.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('user asks to compare, says 'X vs Y', or wants to decide between options') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use for single product lookup — use get_product instead'), along with description of the return value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is clear overlap between 'recommend' and the deprecated 'skincare_recommend', and 'shop' as a routing tool could be ambiguous with 'search_products' and 'recommend'. Descriptions help but are not fully disambiguating.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (e.g., check_inventory, compare_products), while others are single words (shop) or use a noun prefix (skincare_cart, skincare_recommend). The deprecated duplicate 'skincare_recommend' further disrupts consistency.
14 tools is well within the 3-15 range and covers the necessary functions for a skincare commerce server: product lookup, search, recommendation, comparison, compatibility, inventory, checkout, deals, research notes, and issue reporting. No excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core commerce workflows: browsing, product details, recommendations, checkout, deals, and compatibility checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., order history or user profile management) but are outside the apparent scope. The deprecated duplicate is a minor inefficiency.