compare_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions server-side computation and deterministic ranking, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or side effects (though it is a read-like operation). The tie-break chain and units are helpful, but more context could be added.

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 concise with two focused sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, tie-break, units, and usage illustration. No redundant or fluff 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 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers core algorithm, tie-break, and example. It could briefly explain the effect of weights and categories parameters, but overall is adequate for the complexity.

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 low (20%), but the schema itself describes most parameters (mode, sites fields, weights, categories). The description adds an example and the tie-break chain, but does not explain minutes or weights in text. It compensates partially, but not fully for the low coverage.

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's purpose: ranking candidate sites by reach score, server-side and deterministic. It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is for multiple-site comparison (vs. single-site tools like site_reach_score) and includes tie-break chain and units.

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 usage for ranking multiple sites via example and tie-break details, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., isochrone, site_reach_score) or provide exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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