assessment-compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the helpful context that the details are 'public' and that pricing is included, but it does not go beyond that to mention error behavior or response format. With annotations in place, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 that names the action, the target, and the key argument with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names what is returned ('public details and pricing') and how to select the record ('by provider id'). It does not document not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotations already covering safety and idempotency.

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% — the only parameter, 'id', is already described with an example ('adhd-now'). The description merely restates that lookup is 'by provider id', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Get'), the resource ('one provider's public details and pricing'), and the lookup mechanism ('by provider id'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_services or search_providers, which are about broader discovery rather than fetching a single known provider.

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 clearly implies the right use case: when you have a specific provider id and need that provider's details or pricing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one provider... by provider id' phrasing provides sufficient contextual guidance for a simple get-by-id tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result includes the lowest published price and number of providers for each assessment type, helping an agent anticipate the response shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, scope, and expected output without filler. Every clause adds information, and the structure supports quick parsing by an agent.

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 zero parameters, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns. It could be slightly more complete by noting that this is the all-types overview and pointing to sibling tools for provider-specific lookups, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The schema coverage is complete because there is nothing to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('ADHD & autism assessment types compared on NeuroCompare'), including scope qualifiers (adult/child, ADHD/autism) and key output fields (lowest published price, provider count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on providers or related services.

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 implies its use: it provides an overview of assessment types with pricing and provider counts. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_providers, get_provider, or related_services, and it offers no exclusion conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world-false, and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by specifying the objective scoring basis and explicitly distancing itself from medical advice or recommendation. It does not describe edge cases like sorting order or result limits, but these are minor given the annotation safety profile.

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 purpose and the most important caveat front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is ranked, on what criteria, and what it is not. It does not spell out the exact response shape or scoring formula, but 'rank by objective score' is sufficient for a read-only, idempotent query.

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 covers 56% of parameters; the description names scoring factors ('price', 'shared-care') that partially clarify max_price_gbp and needs_shared_care, but limit, for_child, and output ranking semantics are not described. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, so the description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 ('Rank'), a specific resource ('UK ADHD/autism assessment providers'), and the scoring dimensions (price, rating, verification/CQC, wait, shared-care). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_providers and get_provider, and the disclaimer clarifies it is not a recommendation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for obtaining a ranked comparison of providers rather than a single provider or a recommendation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a routing list of sibling sites and their MCP endpoints, which is consistent with those annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: the primary action, object, and purpose are all front-loaded. Every phrase contributes necessary information, making the description compact and scannable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully specifies the output scope (sibling sites, other conditions, MCP endpoints) and the intended use case. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level meaning to add. The baseline of 4 applies because schema coverage is trivially complete and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than non-existent inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a precise resource: sibling Comparison Collective comparison sites for other conditions plus their MCP endpoints. It also states the routing purpose, which clearly differentiates it from generic listing tools like list_services.

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 explicitly ties usage to a user need spanning conditions, giving a clear trigger for when to use this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety/behavioral profile is largely covered. The description adds useful return-behavior context (price sorting, next available appointment date, accepting-new-patients status) beyond annotations, and the 'Find' wording is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. No contradiction exists, but the description does not disclose result-shape details such as whether many providers are returned or how ties on price are broken.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with zero wasted words. The scoping constraint 'lowest published assessment price' leads, followed by availability details, and the final clarifying sentence 'Factual listing data, not a recommendation' earns its place by disambiguating the tool's nature.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and only 55% schema coverage, the description compensates partly by naming the return fields (next available appointment date, accepting-new-patients status, lowest price). However, it leaves gaps an agent needs for correct invocation: the exact result shape, pagination/hard limits on returns, ordering rules when prices tie, and what happens when no provider matches the filters. With no output schema present, these omissions are material.

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 55%, so the schema documents a bit over half the parameters (condition, format, nation, for_child, available_within_days, accepting_new_patients) while leaving limit, max_price_gbp, cqc_registered, needs_shared_care, and published_price_only undocumented. The description partially compensates by linking 'lowest published assessment price' to price/published-only filters and 'availability' to the availability params, but it does not clarify cqc_registered, needs_shared_care, or limit. At ~55% coverage the description should do more than it does.

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 verb and resource ('Find UK private ADHD/autism assessment providers') and a distinct scope ('lowest published assessment price', 'availability'). The line 'Factual listing data, not a recommendation' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling 'match' tool, but it never names siblings such as list_services or get_provider explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 conveys when the tool is appropriate ('find providers', 'can filter by availability') and signals a boundary with 'not a recommendation'. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so an agent must infer which sibling (get_provider, list_services, related_services) to choose instead in any given situation.

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