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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior con consigo. The description adds extra behavioral context: the comparison is published and sourced, and aliases or reversed parameter order resolve to the same canonical comparison. This goes beyond what the annotations or schema state.

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 two concise sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and the canonicalization/alias detail is presented efficiently with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the key facts: published source, canonical comparison, and order-insensitivity. It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools, but the core invocation context is sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implies both parameters are provider identifiers and that aliases/order are handled, but it does not define what a provider identifier looks like or clarify required input formats. Minimal but useful added meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('published, sourced provider comparison'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by focusing on a canonical provider-to-provider comparison rather than general search, page retrieval, or questions.

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 utility is implied: use this tool when you need a direct provider comparison. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_knowledge or get_page, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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