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

Exceeds annotation coverage by explaining the semantics of output fields (info_quality, evidence_state, attributed_url, offers) and clarifying that certain data is for transparency/disclosure only and never a ranking input. Also discloses attribution behavior and absence semantics.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences each add meaningful field-level context. Minor redundancy in repeated 'never a rank/ranking factor' phrasing prevents a 5.

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?

Without an output schema, the description effectively conveys the output structure and special field semantics. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or response format, but for a read-only landscape view this is unlikely to be required.

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?

The single 'category' parameter is fully described in the schema (with examples and omit behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('view') and resource ('comparison-table of every brand in a category'), distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools and match/report tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context that the tool returns a brand comparison table for a category, with explicit instructions on omitted category meaning 'all categories'. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer when to use it.

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