compare_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include live price per serving and that omitting products compares all, but it does not state read-only status, error behavior, permission needs, or result format.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core function is front-loaded and the optional-parameter behavior follows immediately.

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 simple comparison tool with one optional array parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential function and default behavior. It could be slightly richer about what the side-by-side result contains, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the products parameter is optional and that omission triggers a compare-all default, which is useful, but it does not explain the expected string format or list semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource: comparing KABO products side by side, with the added specificity of live price per serving. It is distinguishable from generic search/list tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling compare_foods tool.

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 phrase 'Omit products to compare all' gives a concrete usage rule for the optional parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over compare_foods or other siblings, nor any exclusion criteria.

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