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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful semantic facts — ranks are category-relative and "never paid" (provenance/bias disclosure) — but says nothing about result shape, missing-slug handling, or the 8-item ceiling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the qualifying details. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does have to carry return-value semantics, and it partially does (scores, ranks, rank scope). It lacks any hint about the response structure (per-tool objects, unknown-slug behavior), which is the main remaining gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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 already documents minItems 2 / maxItems 8 and order preservation, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces "two or more" but adds no format guidance for slugs (e.g., where to get them), which would have been the only real value-add.

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 and resource ("Side-by-side scores and ranks") plus the input shape (two or more tool slugs), and clarifies that ranks are category-relative. It never names a sibling (get_tool, get_best_tools, search_tools), so an agent must infer the boundary between comparing several tools and fetching one, but the core purpose 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?

The "two or more" phrasing implicitly signals when to reach for this over a single-tool lookup, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no named alternative. An agent can guess the routing but is not told, for example, whether this replaces calling get_tool repeatedly.

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