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 what is compared but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or how edge cases like missing attributes or fewer than two ids are handled.

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 with no filler words. Every element earns its place: the verb, the resource, the minimum cardinality, and the comparison dimensions.

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 two-parameter tool, this is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The agent is left without explicit information about the response shape or behavior in edge cases, such as invalid ids or objects missing certain attributes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that ids must contain 'two or more' objects and by clarifying the comparison dimensions beyond the schema's generic 'Catalog object ids to compare'.

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'), a clear resource ('tenant catalog objects'), and the exact comparison dimensions ('price, availability, and attributes'). The 'two or more' qualifier distinguishes this from single-object tools like product_lookup.

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 use when comparing multiple catalog objects across the listed dimensions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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