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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes much further, disclosing that it never picks a side nor infers rank from score, defines the tie_band_points=5 'even' rule, explains same_facet=false incomparability, unpublished facet responses, and the cite URL selection logic.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action, and the remaining dense clauses cover output, edge cases, and URL behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, the length is largely earned, though the semicolon-heavy single paragraph could be structured more readably.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and details every returned field: rank, Ranked score, six-dimension breakdown, Google rating, verified tier, distance_km, dimension_leads, and cite URL. It also covers edge cases like same_facet=false and unpublished facets, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 schema fully documents both slug parameters with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds the exact slug format as the tail of https://ranked.ng/place/<slug> and ties the validity of the comparison to the two places sharing a category-city facet, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 comparison operation ('Two business listings side by side, by slug') and scopes it to a published category-city facet. It also clarifies it returns a record rather than a recommendation, which distinguishes it from generic compare tools, but it does not explicitly name a sibling like ranked_compare or ranked_place to guide selection.

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?

Usage is implied by the opening line: compare two listings by slug. The description adds conditions on when the comparison is meaningful (same_facet, unpublished facet), but it never states when to choose this tool over ranked_compare, ranked_place, or other siblings.

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