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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Read-only' is redundant. The description does add genuinely new context: prices are 'live' (fetched at call time, may fluctuate) and results are broken out 'for every pack size', which tells the agent what shape of answer to expect. It stops short of describing ordering or how many rows come back.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and compared fields, then the parameter mode, then the safety note. Nothing padded or ambiguous.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the compared fields and the per-pack-size granularity, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Minor gaps remain around matching behavior for product names and result ordering.

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 100% and already states 'Omit to compare all', so the description's 'Omit products to compare the whole range' repeats structured data. It adds no format hints (e.g. fuzzy vs. exact name matching) beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Compare KABO products side by side') and enumerates the compared attributes (serving size, protein, calories, live price per serving, per pack size). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'compare_foods', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

'Omit products to compare the whole range' gives clear guidance for the optional parameter's two modes. But there is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — nothing says when to pick this over compare_foods or get_product when only one product is of interest.

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