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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains output (structured comparison across price, contract, features, ratings), limitations (TDU filtering), and sequencing dependency. It doesn't explicitly state idempotency or read-only, but the context implies a safe read operation. Still, it's comprehensive.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with core purpose. The structure is logical: what, when, how, limitations, sequencing. Could be slightly trimmed, but still efficient.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, limitations, sequencing, output nature. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of provider_slugs and address but doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides. The added context about TDU filtering is helpful but not critical for parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares 2–5 Texas utility providers side by side, with specific verb 'compare' and resource 'providers'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_utility_providers (which surfaces providers) and get_provider_details (single provider). The use case is precise: when user is deciding between specific named options at a new address.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('user says help me pick between these two'), when not to use (across utility types), and provides sequencing guidance (best after search_utility_providers). Also explains that providers not serving the address's TDU will return no plans, setting proper expectations.

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