compare_guide_itemsCompare 2–6 current public guide items and surface timing conflicts without inventing missing facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| query | No | Natural-language search terms, e.g. AI founders, cybersecurity recruiters, dinner. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| guide | Yes | ||
| dataPolicy | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-open-world, idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it constrains inputs to current public items, states the output is timing-conflict surfacing, and explicitly forbids fabricating missing facts. No auth or rate-limit detail, hence not a 5.
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, zero waste, and the scope constraint (2–6 current public items) is front-loaded before the output promise. Nothing repeats the title or name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, input scope, and grounding behavior; the only shortfall is the undocumented 'goal' parameter.
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 coverage is 33% and only 'query' is documented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'items' by restricting them to current public guide items, but the 'goal' parameter is never explained anywhere, and 'timing conflicts' sits oddly against person/company/food item types that carry no timing.
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) and resource (guide items), plus scope qualifiers (2–6, current, public) that separate it from get_guide_item and search_guide. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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 2–6 item bound and 'current public' qualifier imply when the tool applies, but no alternative is named — it never says to use get_guide_item for a single item or search_guide to discover candidates. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.