get_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns detailed axis labels/units/publishers, correlation statistics (r, rho), a leave-one-out sensitivity range naming the most influential area, and caveats. It also reveals the important constraint that the pair_key must come from the same country. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'full detail' clearly implies retrieval.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by a tight enumeration of return contents and a single sentence about the required source of pair_key. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has only two parameters, the description covers what the tool returns, where the key parameter comes from, and the country-consistency requirement. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real semantics for pair_key by specifying it comes from list_comparisons(country=...) for the same country, and it indirectly ties the country parameter to that call. However, it does not define valid country values, pair_key format, or the optional/default behavior beyond what the schema already shows.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one registered comparison pair,' and then enumerates exactly what is returned (axis metadata, correlation stats, sensitivity range, caveats). This clearly distinguishes it from list_comparisons, which lists pairs rather than giving full detail.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: after obtaining a pair_key from list_comparisons(country=...), and it stresses that the pair_key must come from the SAME country. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond that prerequisite, so it stops short of a 5.

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