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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying it returns full risk records, the safer venue, and composite-score delta, plus an example. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details in the second sentence. No redundant information.

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?

Given the rich annotations and existence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It explains inputs, outputs, and provides an example, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to infer.

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?

Parameter names (venue_a, venue_b) are self-explanatory and the example provides context ('jupiter' vs 'pacifica'). However, with zero schema description coverage, the description should be more explicit about parameter meanings and types. caller_id lacks any description.

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 performs a side-by-side risk comparison of two venues for routing decisions, using specific verb 'compare' and providing an example. This distinguishes it from single-venue risk tools like get_venue_risk_score.

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 description gives clear context ('before routing') and implies the tool is for comparison scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_venue_risk_score or get_risk_assessment.

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