compare_cbd_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the output format (table) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, sorting behavior, or any limitations. Basic transparency but could be improved.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main action and purpose, then a practical use case. Excellent efficiency.

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 comparison tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains purpose, format, and when to use. It could elaborate on the output table structure or how criteria affect comparison, but it meets the essential needs.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only reinforcing the range (2-4) and the use case. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb "compare" and resource "CBD products" and specifies the format "side by side in a table". It also provides a use case, distinguishing it from search or recommendation tools.

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 indicates when to use it (when user hesitates between options), which is helpful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., for single product details, use search_cbd_products).

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