compare_jurisdictions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses it surfaces real rules and does not rank, but lacks details on data sources, update frequency, or potential side effects like rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence captures core function and key example; second adds important qualifier about ranking and api_key. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 adequately explains what the tool does and its boundary (no ranking). Could optionally mention output format or supported jurisdictions, but not necessary for basic usage.

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%, so baseline 3 is fair. The description adds value by giving an example for 'topic' and explaining 'api_key' is optional, sent as header, and free trial counts. Goes beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool compares jurisdictions on a compliance topic side by side, including numeric thresholds. Distinguishes from siblings like 'check_action_compliance' or 'get_jurisdiction_bundle' by focusing on comparison.

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?

Tells when to use (compare jurisdictions) and explicitly states what it does not do (does not rank strictness). Mentions optional api_key usage. Could be improved by referencing sibling tools for other tasks.

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