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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the comparison covers (TVL, APR, risk, audited status) and implies a read-only analytical operation, but it does not state whether data is live, whether any external calls are made, or what happens with unsupported metrics.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action and scope are immediately clear.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke it correctly: the vault count, the comparison dimensions, and the side-by-side presentation. The phrase 'and more' is slightly vague, but it does not block correct usage.

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 the single parameter 'vaults' and its nested 'network' and 'address' fields are already fully documented. The description adds context about what will be compared but no additional parameter syntax or formatting details, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource ('2-3 DeFi vaults') and enumerates the comparison dimensions (TVL, APR, risk score, risk tier, audited status). This distinguishes it from single-vault tools like get_vault and ranked tools like find_safest_vaults.

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 establishes the usage context: when an agent needs a side-by-side comparison of a specific set of 2-3 vaults. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the comparison framing is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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