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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful output-shape context (one row per fact, one column per place, citation per place) and compares confidence, freshness and provenance, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 alias caveat is front-loaded, followed by the scope and then usage. The fact enumeration is slightly list-heavy, but every part earns its place and there's no preamble filler.

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?

It covers when to call it, what it returns conceptually, and the alias relationship; an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. It could more explicitly direct new clients to dogpolicies_compare_places, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the 2–6 bound on ids and the markdown/json enum. The description only restates the id range and adds an illustrative example, which is marginal added value, so 3 is the correct baseline.

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 names the specific verb and resource ('compare two to six places') and immediately identifies itself as an alias of dogpolicies_compare_places, so an agent knows exactly what it does and how it relates to the canonical sibling. It also enumerates the compared facts (dogs allowed, leash rule, pet fee, weight limit, etc.), which further pins down scope.

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 states a concrete trigger ('Use after a search returned candidates and the user asks "which one?"') and where ids come from ('any search result'), with a worked example. It doesn't say when to prefer the canonical dogpolicies_compare_places instead, which is a minor gap for an alias tool.

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