compare_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the ordering key (reported success rate), tie/edge handling (candidates without data last), an explicit data exclusion (scanner observations do not affect ordering), and the conditional suggestion rule requiring at least 5 rated interactions. It stops short of covering failure modes or whether the call is purely read-only, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, ordering, data exclusion, suggestion condition. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description explains what effectively comes back (candidate ordering, interaction count, confidence, conditional suggestion) and the rules that govern it. Remaining gaps are minor — no explicit statement of read-only safety, error behavior, or handling of invalid candidate identifiers.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's '2 to 5' merely restates the min/maxItems constraints rather than adding format or syntax guidance. task_type is not addressed in the description at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and resource (tools or agents) with a bounded scope of 2-5 items, plus the data source (interactions reported to Lowdown). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_lowdown, get_node_stats, and record_interaction without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this when you want to rank or contrast several tools/agents — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_lowdown or get_node_stats, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that candidates must already be tracked). The reader must infer the selection context.

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