Compare 2-3 construction companies side by side on prices, ratings, number of projects, and specialization.
Args: company_ids: Comma-separated company UUIDs to compare (2-3 IDs). Example: 'uuid1,uuid2,uuid3'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the input constraint (2-3 comma-separated UUIDs) and the comparison attributes, implying a read-only operation. But it does not specify error behavior for invalid ID counts, data freshness, or any side effects/requirements, so some burden remains.
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 two clear sentences plus a structured Args block, with no redundant content. It front-loads the main purpose and keeps the parameter detail separate.
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?
Given the single parameter, existing output schema, and straightforward read-only nature, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and input requirements. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, and no return-value explanation is needed since output schema exists.
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 provides only a string type with no description; the description compensates fully by explaining the format (comma-separated UUIDs), the cardinality (2-3 IDs), and giving an explicit example. This goes 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 explicitly states the tool compares 2-3 construction companies on prices, ratings, project count, and specialization, using a specific verb 'compare' and resource 'construction companies'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like price_comparison or region_comparison by focusing on companies and multiple criteria.
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 implies the tool is intended for side-by-side comparison of a small set of specific companies, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools, leaving exclusions unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.