compare_districtsUse when the question names two or more places and asks how they differ — "compare Pune and Nagpur on literacy and bank credit". One call, not one get_district per district. Write an ambiguous name as "Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| districts | Yes | District names, "Name, State" where a name repeats, or objectids. | |
| indicators | Yes | Indicator ids from find_indicator. At most 5. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by emphasizing the batch behavior ('One call, not one get_district per district') and by advising how to disambiguate names. It does not describe return values, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.
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?
Three sentences, all relevant, with the most important usage rule front-loaded. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.
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 read-only comparison tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers when to use it, how it differs from the obvious alternative, and naming nuance. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the sibling find_indicator covers indicator selection.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the disambiguation format. The description reinforces this with an example and the 'Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh' guidance, but it does not add substantial meaning 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?
The description states a specific verb ('compare'), resource (districts), and trigger condition ('question names two or more places and asks how they differ'). It also explicitly differentiates from get_district, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use rule with a concrete example and clearly says 'One call, not one get_district per district,' which both provides the usage context and names the alternative. This leaves little to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.