compare_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return items (profiles, verdict) and the conditional existence of a head-to-head verdict. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving behavioral traits partially uncovered.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and followed by output details. Every word is relevant and no superfluous information, achieving high conciseness.

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 adequately covers the tool's output for a simple comparison tool with two required parameters and no nested objects. It mentions the return fields (pricing, rating, etc.) but does not cover error conditions or slug existence handling. Given no output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness for typical use.

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% with both parameters already described. The description adds that slugs are 'directory slugs,' which clarifies the parameter values but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: compare two AI tools by directory slugs. It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'AI tools,' and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tool' (single tool) and 'find_alternatives' (alternative search).

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 when to use the tool (for side-by-side comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'find_alternatives' or 'search_tools.' It lacks explicit guidance on selection criteria.

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