Compare Ducks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds the behavioral detail of simultaneous multi-duck queries, but does not elaborate on concurrency behavior, error handling, or provider limits. This 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, one required), the provided output schema, and the annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple comparative tool. It does not explain what 'ducks' represents or how providers are selected, but the schema and tool naming cover this. Slight gap: no mention of default provider behavior when providers is omitted.

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 100%, so all four parameters (prompt, model, images, providers) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds the conceptual 'same question' mapping to the prompt but offers no extra semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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: asking the same question to multiple ducks simultaneously. It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('ducks'), and scope ('same question', 'multiple... simultaneously'), distinguishing it from siblings like ask_duck (single duck) and duck_council.

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 provides clear context for when to use: when you want multiple answers to the same question in parallel. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like duck_debate or duck_council, which could be useful for differentiation.

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