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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by disclosing the exact comparison dimensions and constraining scope to 'indexed tools.' It does not cover error handling or invalid slugs, but the core behavior is clear and non-mutating.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and outputs, the second gives a usage routing hint. Every sentence 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?

Given an output schema exists, return-value details are covered. The description covers comparison fields, slug count limits, and an alternative tool, but could be more complete by differentiating get_trust_report.

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 the schema description 'Tool slugs to compare' already documents the parameter. The description repeats the 2-6 limit but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Description states a specific action ('Compare several indexed tools side by side') and names the comparison dimensions (trust score, security flags, publisher verification, category, pricing tier). This clearly distinguishes it from ranking-related siblings like find_solutions.

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 directs agents to use find_solutions for ranking when fit matters, giving a clear alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with get_trust_report, but the comparison vs. ranking distinction is actionable enough for most cases.

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