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 describes the return data but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed, leaving some gap for a tool with zero annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context. No filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and what is returned. It does not mention edge cases like invalid slugs or partial data, but these are not critical given the simplicity. The explicit workflow context makes it sufficiently complete.

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%: the 'slugs' parameter is fully described in the schema (list of 2-5 slugs, type, examples). The description adds no new parameter semantics; it only restates the agent context already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Head-to-head trust comparison of 2-5 Hlido-reviewed agents.' It specifies the exact outputs (Laddoo score, tier, dimension scores, claim verdicts) and distinguishes it from siblings like find_trusted or recommend by focusing on direct comparison after shortlisting.

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 second sentence explicitly tells when to use it: 'once you've shortlisted candidates (via find_trusted, find_similar_agents, or recommend) and need a direct comparison.' It names specific alternative tools and implies when not to use it (before shortlisting).

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