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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes one valuable disclosure — that throughput and transport specs are deliberately not exposed because they aren't structured data — which sets accurate expectations. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors such as error handling for invalid slugs or the return format.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the exact comparison dimensions; the second adds a single high-value limitation. Every word earns its place.

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?

Complete enough for a 2-parameter comparison tool. The comparison dimensions are enumerated, and the key known limitation (no throughput/transport specs) is disclosed. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on return format would help, but the comparison nature of the tool makes the output largely self-evident.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented there with useful detail (slugs: 'Use list_protocols to get valid values'; locale: enum values with a Spanish default). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (compare), a specific resource (industrial protocols), and explicit comparison dimensions (family, summary, ingestion method, target keywords). The scope is unambiguous and clearly differentiated from siblings like list_protocols, which presumably lists rather than compares.

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 makes clear when to use it (when a side-by-side protocol comparison is needed) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The schema's slugs description adds the list_protocols prerequisite, but the description itself could name the sibling more explicitly.

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