compare_workload

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the return structure (nested breakdowns, per-cloud totals, cheapest cloud) and the effect of commitment parameter. While it does not explicitly state it's read-only, it implies a query operation. Almost fully transparent.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences, each adding necessary information. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then exclusions. No filler, no repetition of schema details.

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 complexity (nested arrays, no output schema), the description explains return structure and distinguishes sibling tools. It covers the main use case but lacks details on response format or error handling. Almost complete, minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, baseline 3. The description adds semantics for the commitment parameter (explaining discount percentages) but does not delve into the array parameters' sub-fields beyond stating they expect compute and storage lists. Adequate but minimal additional value.

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 'Combined compute + block-storage compare across AWS, Azure, GCP, and OCI', providing a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternative tools for object storage and databases.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pass a compute list and a storage list (either may be empty)' and provides exclusions: 'For object storage, use compare_object_storage. For managed databases, use compare_postgres_database.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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