compare_websites

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 states that the tool returns scores, grades, and a winner, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, requirements for valid URLs, or possible network dependencies. This lack of safety and side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a tool that presumably accesses websites.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and output. There is no unnecessary fluff, and it earns its place by conveying both the action and the return type.

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 tool with only two self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior: it compares two websites and returns scores, grades, and a winner. It lacks some detail about interpretation of the results, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, each described as 'First website to compare' and 'Second website to compare'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond these descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the schema coverage rule.

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 action with a specific verb 'Compare' and a specific resource 'two websites', and it mentions the output of scores, grades, and a winner. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_website or ai_visibility_check, which focus on a single website or visibility check.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to compare two websites side-by-side. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a single-site audit is needed instead. This is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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