compare

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

The description discloses a key behavior: 'search-based lookup (best-effort name matching).' However, it does not elaborate on what happens when a name is not found, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 short, well-structured sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: purpose, output, behavior, and guidance.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and when to use it. However, it lacks details on the return format, error handling (e.g., if an artifact is not found), and does not mention that there is no output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete.

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), so the schema itself provides adequate semantic meaning. The description adds context about the lookup method but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's examples.

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 specifies the verb ('Compare'), resource ('two AI artifacts side-by-side'), and the specific types of information shown ('capabilities, pricing, rank, and graph signals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search' and 'get_artifact' by focusing on comparison.

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 includes an explicit usage hint: 'Use this when deciding between alternatives.' While this provides clear context, it does not exclude specific scenarios or mention alternative tools (e.g., 'search' for single artifact lookup).

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