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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the count constraint already present in the schema, without disclosing read-only behavior, error handling, ordering, or what the comparison returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation and scope.

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 one-parameter tool this is minimally viable, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around usage routing, return format, and behavioral details. It is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'ids' parameter. The description adds that the ids refer to driving schools and that 2–5 are compared, but it does not clarify id format, source, or any further constraints beyond the schema's min/max.

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 states a specific verb ('Side-by-side comparison'), resource ('driving schools'), and scope ('2–5 by id'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_school (single school) and search_schools (search rather than direct comparison).

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a comparison tool, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_school or search_schools, nor does it name any prerequisites or exclusions.

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