compare_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra details are genuinely additive. It discloses sequential per-card requests, approximate 5-second latency, per-card error rows, and that captcha/rate limits abort the whole comparison—exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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: the result shape is front-loaded, followed by two tightly written caveat sentences. Every line earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 output schema exists, the single well-documented parameter, and safety annotations, the description covers the remaining operational concerns: item limit, sequential latency, failure behavior, and abort conditions. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only comparison 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single `products` parameter is fully documented by the schema. The description reinforces the 'up to 10' limit but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (up to 10 seller cards) and the output shape (side-by-side rows with prices, rating, seller, delivery), which makes the tool's purpose recognizable. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of fully distinguishing itself from tools like get_product or get_offers.

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 intended use is implied: compare multiple seller cards side-by-side, and the latency/failure caveats help an agent judge whether it is appropriate. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_offers or get_product, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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