Side-by-side comparison of two ranked providers by brand name. Returns rank, score, pricing, verdict, pros, cons for each, plus a one-line winner call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | Brand name or slug of provider A (e.g. 'Burkland Associates' or 'burkland-associates'). | |
| b | Yes | Brand name or slug of provider B. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It helpfully lists the output fields (rank, score, pricing, verdict, pros, cons, winner), which is valuable given no output schema, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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 sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return information follows immediately.
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 the tool's simplicity, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. The only gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling tools.
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%, so both parameters (a and b) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by brand name,' which the schema already conveys.
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 verb (compare) and resource (two ranked providers), and the side-by-side framing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recommend, pick_one, and best_for.
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?
It implies the tool is for comparing two providers by brand name, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Siblings like pick_one or recommend are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.