compare_products

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: results are live, up to 50 articles can be compared per request, and articles without an offer are listed with a reason, which helps set expectations for edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core capability and limit, and the following list enumerates returned fields without fluff. No unnecessary repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior, batch limit, and edge case of unavailable articles. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Article numbers to compare') with min/max constraints, so the description adds little about parameter syntax. It reinforces that the parameter accepts article numbers and supports up to 50, but does not need to compensate for a schema gap.

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 performs live side-by-side comparison of offers for up to 50 articles, and enumerates the offer fields returned. This distinguishes it from single-product get_product, search, price history, and reviews siblings by emphasizing multi-article comparison in one request.

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?

It conveys the intended use case—comparing current offers across multiple articles—by specifying batch size and included data such as price, stock, seller, and delivery estimate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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