compare_states

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important trait: 'a state whose value is unknown is listed separately rather than omitted, so it is never silently dropped from a ranking'. This is valuable context about missing data handling. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns a table or list, ordering, etc.), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 highly concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, and the second provides usage examples plus a critical edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy.

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 parameterless tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is compared, across which scope, and includes usage examples. It also addresses the important unknown-value handling. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have explicitly described the return value structure (e.g., a ranked list or table). It implies output via 'listed separately' but does not fully specify it, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is vacuously 100%. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly does not need to add parameter details; it focuses on the tool's behavior.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('granny flat rules'), and explicitly scopes it to 'all eight states and territories'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_granny_flat_rules, which likely targets individual states, and check_data_freshness.

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 gives concrete example questions ('which state is easiest to build in', 'where can I build the largest granny flat') that illustrate when to use this tool. It clearly implies it's for cross-state comparisons, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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