compare_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns 'full store profiles' for comparison, indicating a read operation, but does not disclose details like data freshness, authentication needs, or whether results are real-time or cached. The behavioral description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or fluff. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the input range, the action, and the return value ('full store profiles' with examples of data like traffic, products, platforms). No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by explaining the output. It could be more exhaustive about the exact fields, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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% with a single parameter (domains) fully described. The description adds context by specifying 'e-commerce stores' and the output type ('full store profiles'), but these are minor enhancements. The baseline is 3, as the schema already handles the parameter definition well.

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 the verb 'compare' and the resource 'e-commerce stores', with a specific range of 2 to 10. It distinguishes from siblings like search_stores and get_store by focusing on side-by-side comparison of multiple stores. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the individual get_store_* tools that return specific aspects, which could be used for comparison as well.

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 implies the tool is for comparing multiple stores, but it provides no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for a single store's data) or alternatives like get_store_traffic for specific metrics. The context is clear for the intended use case, but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling references.

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