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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses partial matching semantics, preference for available wheels, the not_found fallback, and the failure condition if fewer than 2 wheels are found. These are real behavioral traits beyond the basic compare action.

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 with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the matching/error details each earn their place. It is compact while carrying all essential operational information.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description is self-sufficient: it defines input expectations, matching behavior, the not_found output concept, and the failure condition. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 value by explaining how the company/model inputs are interpreted (partial matching, availability preference) and the minimum-2-result requirement. This goes beyond the schema's bare '2 to 3 wheels' typing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Compare 2-3 wheels side by side') and specifies what the comparison yields (full specs and prices in every currency). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_wheels or get_wheel_price, which focus on discovery or a single price.

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 clearly establishes the intended context: use it when you need to compare two or three specific wheels and see specs/prices across currencies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the side-by-side comparison intent is explicit and unambiguous.

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