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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is being compared and that the output emphasizes structural differences, but says nothing about return format, error handling for invalid slugs, or how many platforms are practically supported. Useful content hints, but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the action and comparison axes. The second sentence is mildly editorial ('promotional') but does convey why the comparison view is the right shape, so it largely earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent knows what to send and roughly what is compared, but not what the response looks like or how results are ordered. Adequate minimum, with a clear gap in return-shape expectations.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including an example array of slugs. The description echoes the 'two or more' constraint but adds no format, validation, or slug-resolution detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (compare) and resource (two or more custody platforms) with the exact comparison axes: Proof of Custody scores and custody architecture. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-platform sibling get_custody_platform and the list-oriented search_custody_platforms.

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 offers a rationale for when this shape is useful (a custody decision, where differences are structural rather than promotional), which implies usage context. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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