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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a generic 'compare' by explaining that each tool keeps its own score and tier, that results are not collapsed, and that a caveat is surfaced for mismatched tiers. This is meaningful behavioral detail, though it does not describe the exact output format.

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 sentences, all informative and appropriately front-loaded: what the tool does, when to use it, and an important behavioral caveat. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral output semantics (per-tool score/tier, caveat on tier mismatch). It is nearly complete, though it leaves the exact response representation unspecified.

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% and the only parameter is already well documented in the schema ('Tool names, packages, or servers — free text, one per tool'). The description reinforces the context but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('compare'), a specific resource ('MCP tools'), and a clear scope ('2-5', 'side by side'). It also conveys what the tool intentionally does not do—collapse results into a single ranked number—which sharply differentiates it from the check/find siblings.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool: 'Call this when weighing alternatives for the same task.' This gives clear selection context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusions guidance.

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