compare_operators

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the exact output payload per operator (IGR with size-class median and position, IDSS, access-to-care band, 5-year fines count, small-group readjustment). It doesn't mention behavior on unknown/ambiguous operator names or error handling, which is the main remaining gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the example phrasings immediately follow. The 'For each operator' list is long but each item is load-bearing output detail, so it earns its space despite the density.

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 2-param read tool with no annotations, the description covers scope, inputs, and output contents thoroughly; the existence of an output schema means the enumerated metrics are bonus rather than required. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid or ambiguous operator identifiers), which prevents a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines accepted operator identifier forms (names, CNPJs, ANS registry numbers) with an example, and enumerates the coverage values ('medica' default, 'odonto') that the schema leaves as a bare string. It could clarify what medica vs odonto changes in the output, keeping it from a 5.

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 (side-by-side comparison), resource (health-plan operators), and scope (2 to 8 operators on ANS indicators). This clearly distinguishes it from operator_profile (single operator) and rank_operators (ranking), so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

The description gives concrete triggering questions ('Amil or Bradesco Saúde?', 'compare the plans my company offers'), which clearly signals the use case. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the sibling alternatives (rank_operators, operator_profile), so it falls short of a 5.

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