Compare Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds specific behavioral details: trust profiles, evidence-based verdict, and URL. No contradiction; adds value beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and outputs. However, it could be split for readability and to emphasize usage context.

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?

Output schema exists, reducing need to explain returns, but parameter descriptions are lacking. With openWorldHint and readOnlyHint, the description covers main behavior but not parameter constraints or when to use.

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% and parameters 'a' and 'b' have no descriptions. The description only hints they are agent identifiers but gives no format, valid values, or prerequisites. Barely compensates for missing schema details.

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 uses a specific verb 'compare' with resource 'AI agents' and details outputs: trust profiles, verdict, URL. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_agent_trust (single agent trust) and get_agent_history (history).

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 implies use when comparing two agents and mentions 'when one is published', but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like search_agents or check_agent_trust.

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