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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral constraints about retaining metric periods, team evidence, limits, and never converting revenue to profit, though auth or membership requirements are not fully explained.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted text. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the behavioral constraint is stated directly.

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?

Covers the core comparison purpose and some data-handling behavior, but with no output schema and an undocumented language parameter, the definition leaves some invocation-relevant details unstated. Annotations cover safety, but return semantics and parameter usage are only partially addressed.

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%, so the description must document both parameters. It clarifies that ids correspond to 2–4 reviewed cases and implies same-customer-job scope, but it says nothing about the language parameter or its zh/en enum.

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 (compare), resource (reviewed cases), and scope (2–4 cases for the same customer job). It is distinguishable from search_startup_cases and startup_preview, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those 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?

Implies when to use it by requiring 2–4 reviewed cases for the same customer job, but gives no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as search_startup_cases.

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