sagrank_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or non-destructive behavior. It only describes the output (a comparison table) without mentioning whether it performs read-only analysis, accesses external APIs (other than the optional PSI key), or has rate limits.

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, well-organized sentence that lists all comparison dimensions. It is slightly verbose due to the detailed enumeration, but remains focused 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?

The description provides a full picture of what the tool does and what output to expect (comparison table, winner, strengths). It does not mention any prerequisites or dependencies, but these are not necessary for the core understanding.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (url1, url2, psi_key, estrategia) with enum values for estrategia. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: comparing two websites and generating a side-by-side comparison table. It is distinct from sibling tools (audit, check_ai_crawlers, generate_fixes) by clearly targeting pairwise competitive analysis.

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 implicitly defines the use case: use when you need a competitive head-to-head comparison of two sites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use this instead of sagrank_audit when comparing two URLs'), leaving some room for inference.

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