Compare construction markets across regions. Provide comma-separated region names. Shows companies count, ratings, prices, contact availability for each region side by side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regions | Yes | ||
| category | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output content (companies count, ratings, prices, contact availability) and the side-by-side presentation format. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, or other behavioral nuances. Adequate but not detailed.
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 extremely concise, composed of three short sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It gets straight to the point.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and gives a preview of the output, but it misses the optional 'category' parameter and any limitations or edge cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the incomplete parameter coverage leaves meaningful gaps.
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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'regions' parameter by specifying comma-separated format, which is valuable. However, the optional 'category' parameter is entirely omitted from the description, leaving its purpose unexplained.
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 'construction markets across regions', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_companies and price_comparison. The purpose is immediately evident and unambiguous.
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 states exactly when to use the tool: when comparing construction markets across regions. It also provides a direct usage instruction ('Provide comma-separated region names'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.