compare_jurisdictions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses return values (total, split, spread, gap, cost on 100-unit project) and payment requirements (x402 or prepaid key). It lacks mention of rate limits or idempotency, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the main action, describing output, explaining parameters, and noting premium access. No superfluous information.

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 and only two parameters, the description adequately explains outputs and usage. It covers key details but omits default behavior for dev_type and error scenarios, which are 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds examples ('['Phoenix, AZ', 'Raleigh, NC', 'Austin, TX']') and clarifies the default for dev_type, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 specific verbs ('Compare', 'ranked') and identifies the resource ('US jurisdictions', 'municipal development cost'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'rank_jurisdictions_by_cost' by emphasizing side-by-side comparison and specific return details.

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 when to use this tool ('site-selection question a developer asks before buying land') and explains parameter format with examples. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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