compare_object_storage

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool picks the cheapest SKU per cloud, highlights OCI free tier, and warns about missing costs and preview status. This is comprehensive for a pricing comparison tool.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then inputs, then a critical limitation note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on result format (e.g., table of prices). However, it covers core behavior, inputs, and limitations adequately for the tool's simplicity.

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 description explains the tier parameter (hot/cool/archive) and adds context about OCI free tier based on capacity. Schema descriptions also cover tier, but the description provides additional behavioral semantics.

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 object-storage pricing across AWS S3, Azure Blob, GCP Cloud Storage, and OCI Object Storage, and mentions key inputs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_egress.

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 specifies when to use the tool (comparing pricing for a given capacity and tier) and notes limitations (egress not modeled). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for excluded costs.

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