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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds the specific comparison categories but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format, data sources, or potential limitations. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not especially rich.

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, focused sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and key comparison modes without unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters (one required), an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is being compared and the two comparison modes. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the overall context is sufficient for effective use.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the enum for comparison_type. The description adds some context by naming examples of the comparison types, but it does not further clarify locale, country, or product_handle beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 the tool compares Bolot Studio products with specific comparison types (Legacy vs Cinematic, or vs competitors like Displate, Canvas, Framed prints). The verb 'compare' plus the listed resources and comparison modes make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_product_recommendations.

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 provides clear context on what types of comparisons are supported (internal vs competitor), which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as using get_product_recommendations for product suggestions rather than direct comparisons. Still, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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