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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: the tool does not invent cross-source score equivalence, which tells the agent not to expect or create a unified score. It does not mention return format or failure modes, but the core behavior is meaningfully described.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action verb is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat is appended. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description captures the tool's core function and its main caveat, which is sufficient for a simple single-parameter tool without an output schema. It is missing explicit usage alternatives relative to siblings, but the missing information is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The only parameter, 'ids', is given semantic meaning by the phrase 'rich xOmniMarket records' and the count range 'two to eight' matches the schema constraints. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining what ids represent and how many to provide.

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 the specific verb 'compare', the resource 'rich xOmniMarket records', and the count range 'two to eight'. The added constraint 'without inventing cross-source score equivalence' clarifies the tool's precise role, distinguishing it from siblings like get_market_item or search_market.

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 clearly implies the tool is for comparing a set of records, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or give exclusion conditions. The phrase 'two to eight' sets a clear precondition for use, yet there is no guidance about when to choose this over find_alternatives or build_decision_report.

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