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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the comparison surfaces (price, category, trades, integrations) and the 2-12 item bound, which is meaningful context given there is no output schema.

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, zero waste, with the core scope and dimensions front-loaded and the invocation options following. Nothing redundant.

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?

Covers both parameters, the item bound, and the comparison content for a tool with no output schema. The one soft spot is that no parameter is marked required, so the description's 'pass slugs, or a comparison slug' is the only signal that at least one input is needed.

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, but the description goes beyond it by showing the alternative invocation path and giving a concrete example format for the comparison slug ("ai-receptionist-pricing"). This clarifies how the two parameters relate when the schema only labels them individually.

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 (compare) and resource (trades tools), plus the scope (2 to 12) and the dimensions compared. The multi-tool scope implicitly separates it from the singular sibling get_trade_tool.

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?

Explains the two invocation modes (tool slugs or a prebuilt comparison slug) but never states when to prefer this over search_trade_tools or get_trade_tool, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the parameter guidance rather than spelled out.

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