compare_workload

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the transparency burden. It explains the combined nature, output structure, and that commitment discounts apply only to compute. However, it omits details on empty input behavior, errors, or side effects.

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 (four sentences) and well-structured: purpose, inputs, outputs, optional parameter. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of return values (per-row breakdowns, per-cloud totals, cheapest cloud). It is mostly complete but lacks details on the nested structure and edge cases.

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 low (33%), so the description should compensate. It adds context about the commitment parameter (discounts only on compute) and that compute/list may be empty. However, it does not elaborate on individual compute/storage fields beyond the schema itself.

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 'Combined compute + storage compare across AWS, Azure, and GCP', specifies inputs (compute and storage lists), and describes outputs (per-row breakdowns, per-cloud totals, cheapest cloud). It distinguishes from sibling tools by combining both compute and storage.

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 combined compute+storage comparison and that either list can be empty, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus specialized siblings (e.g., compare_compute_inventory). No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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