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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the nature of the result (side-by-side details with specific comparison categories) and implies a read-only comparator, but it does not describe error behavior, response format, or what happens for invalid/missing slugs.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary purpose, the input mechanism, and the output categories efficiently, earning every word.

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 two-parameter comparator, the description covers purpose and key output fields, but with no output schema or annotations it leaves response structure, edge cases, and failure behavior unspecified. It is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By slug' gives both slug_a and slug_b meaningful semantics as tool identifiers, but it does not specify slug format, case sensitivity, or whether the slugs must correspond to existing tools.

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 a specific action ('Side-by-side detail') and resource ('two tools by slug'), and enumerates the comparison fields (pricing, rating, pros/cons, best-for/avoid-if). It distinguishes itself from siblings by requiring two slugs, unlike search_tools, get_tool, recommend_tool, or list_categories.

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 gives a clear use context: compare two known tools by slug. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_tool for single-tool details, but the two-slug requirement makes the intended scenario evident.

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