compare_programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself; it doesn't discuss limitations like max 5 programs or error behavior. With annotations providing the core safety info, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 tool has two parameters and no output schema. Annotations cover safety, but the description omits the meaning of include_rules and the limit on number of programs (max 5). For a read-only comparison tool, some gaps remain, but the core purpose is clear. Adequate given moderate complexity.

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 is the only textual source for param meaning. It explains what the comparison yields (rewards, costs, scopes, constraints) but does not explain the 'slugs' parameter or the 'include_rules' flag. The schema's pattern gives some hint for slugs, but the description leaves include_rules undocumented. It adds partial value over the schema but doesn't fully compensate.

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 specific verb ('Compare'), the resource (programs), and the exact attributes being compared (rewards, credit costs, scopes, main constraints). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_program (single program details) and search_programs (finding programs).

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 purpose implies usage for comparing multiple programs, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling set, an agent could infer use cases, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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