compare_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a comparison table with specific fields, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but somewhat limited.

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 consists of two succinct sentences that immediately convey the tool's function and output. It is front-loaded with the key action and includes no extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, input, output contents. It could be more explicit about the comparison criteria, but it is largely 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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'slugs' with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, merely echoing the purpose. Since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('compare two or more APIs side by side') and the output ('comparison table with scores, pricing, auth, and capabilities'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_api_details', which focuses on a single API.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when needing to compare multiple APIs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to consider, such as 'get_api_details' for single API queries.

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