compare_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates in parallel, Claude synthesizes outputs, verifies against the repository, and produces a final conclusion. However, it does not mention side effects, cost, rate limits, or data privacy risks of sending questions to external models—important for a tool that makes external calls.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes meaning. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (external calls, comparison, synthesis) and the absence of annotations, the description provides the core workflow but lacks operational context such as error handling, latency, cost, or permission implications. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description is still somewhat thin for a tool with side effects.

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 only 33%, and the description adds minimal parameter-level detail. It implies 'task' is the shared question and 'providers' maps to 'two or three external models', but it does not clarify the meaning of 'mode', 'reasoning_effort', or 'max_output_tokens'. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 asks two or three external models the same question in parallel, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also describes the follow-up actions (compare, verify, synthesize), making it distinct from sibling delegation tools that likely send to a single model.

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 an explicit 'Use when' condition: 'independent opinions materially improve confidence.' It implies this tool is for high-stakes or ambiguous tasks, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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