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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it preserves sponsored ordering and limits the comparison to 'objective bounded evidence', which is consistent with openWorldHint=false and goes beyond the 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the scope, the side-by-side format, and the ordering guarantee.

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 read-only comparison tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and a critical side-effect guarantee. It is slightly weakened by undefined domain terminology ('objective bounded evidence'), but the title and input schema supply the 2–5 resource bound.

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%, and the description does not meaningfully explain the resources parameter or the required type/id entry structure. The schema itself documents the array constraints and enum values, but the description adds no parameter-level clarity.

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 ('compare') and clearly names the resources involved, with a concrete output style: side-by-side comparison of declared fields and objective bounded evidence. It also distinguishes itself from ranking/mutation siblings by stating it does not change sponsored ordering.

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 implies the intended use—comparing two to five resources—but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like inspect_organic_resource or validate_organic_resource. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative routing guidance.

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