Compare two boat brands head-to-head on Obato: listing counts, avg/median price, avg length, year range. Brand matching is case-insensitive substring matching, identical to search_boats. Powers 'X vs Y' answer-engine queries (e.g. 'Bavaria vs Beneteau').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand_a | Yes | ||
| brand_b | Yes | ||
| type_boot | No | Optional category filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: brand matching is case-insensitive substring matching and identical to search_boats. This is useful behavioral context that the schema and annotations do not provide.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose and metrics come first, followed by matching behavior and usage context. Every sentence 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 read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return metrics and the intended answer-engine context. It could be more explicit about output shape or type_boot value examples, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for brand_a and brand_b. It does so by stating they are boat brands and giving a concrete example ('Bavaria vs Beneteau'), plus explaining matching semantics. The type_boot parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds value where needed.
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 a specific verb ('Compare'), resource ('two boat brands head-to-head on Obato'), and lists the comparison metrics. The 'X vs Y' phrasing helps distinguish it from single-brand siblings, though no explicit sibling is named for differentiation.
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 explicitly states the intended use case: powering 'X vs Y' answer-engine queries with a concrete example. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough 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.
Most tools target distinct resources, but get_boat_pricing_stats and get_market_stats overlap heavily: both return count, average, median, min/max price scoped by category and region. ask_bo and get_facts also both return cited factual content, leaving some ambiguity even if the descriptions help.
The set predominantly follows a verb_noun pattern: search_boats, search_rentals, get_brand_info, compare_brands, and get_boat_details all fit cleanly. market_snapshot breaks the pattern as a bare noun phrase, and ask_bo uses a proper noun, but these are minor deviations within an otherwise predictable convention.
11 tools is well-scoped for a multifaceted read-only marketplace domain covering listings, rentals, brands, marinas, knowledge-graph facts, and market statistics. Each tool earns its place, even though a couple of them partially overlap.
Core workflows are covered: boat search and details, rental search, brand lookup and comparison, marina discovery, knowledge-graph facts, and multiple market statistics views. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated marina detail endpoint and rental details only appearing via search results, but agents can work around these.
