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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detailed return contract (localized details, availability, retailer-authoritative and displayed prices, commercial state, canonical URL) and notes that prices are directly comparable. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, but the operation is clearly a query and the output behavior is well specified.

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 the core action and constraints front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but each element—return contract fields and comparability—adds meaningful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining both input constraints and expected return values. It omits explicit error behavior or handling of invalid slugs, but for a 2-parameter comparison tool the essential information is present.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 2-10 range and single-storefront requirement, but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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'), the exact resource ('Mamanida products'), the allowed quantity range (2-10), and the storefront scope. References get_product's contract, which helps distinguish this comparison tool from the single-product get_product tool.

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?

Clearly conveys that this tool is for comparing multiple products within one storefront. It implies get_product is the alternative for a single product by referencing its contract, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like search_products.

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