compare_criteriaThe criteria and any filters of the Who may broker the sale of a US private company comparison.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "compare_criteria"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return values, or any operational behavior. The agent has no idea what happens when the tool is invoked.
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?
The description is a single convoluted sentence that is not front-loaded with the most critical information. It is not concise in meaning; it is awkwardly phrased and does not prioritize clarity.
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?
Even though the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description is so vague that an agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how to use it. It lacks essential context about its purpose and expected behavior.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description does not need to explain any parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4, and the description does not contradict this.
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 is a noun phrase ('The criteria and any filters of the ... comparison') rather than a clear verb+resource. It does not state what the tool does, such as returning or comparing criteria. It is vague and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like compare_options or compare_table.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.