compare_films

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what dimensions get compared (grain, ISO, color response, price), or how results are returned. 'Side by side' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted elsewhere.

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?

For a comparison tool with opaque 'a'/'b' parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least identify what the parameters reference and what the comparison returns.

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 0% with two parameters named 'a' and 'b' that are opaque. The description says 'two film stocks' but does not clarify that 'a' and 'b' are film stock identifiers, nor their expected format (name, ID, slug). The description fails to compensate for the zero schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (film stocks), which is unambiguous against siblings like search_film_stocks or get_film_stock. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings, but the comparison scope is clear from the verb.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_film_stocks or get_film_stock, nor what kinds of comparisons are supported. The agent must infer that this is for two-stock head-to-head comparison only.

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