compare_options

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description's job is narrower. It does add real behavioral information — that a score of 1 acts as a redline and such options are forced to the bottom of the ranking. However, it says nothing about how weights combine with scores, how ties are broken, or what the ranking output looks like, and with no output schema those gaps remain.

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 with the ranking action front-loaded, followed by the scale, the weighting option, and the redline rule. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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 tool with nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic but omits dimension definitions, weight interaction, tie-breaking, and the shape of the result. Adequate to start, not sufficient to call confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It contributes genuine semantics by equating a score of 1 with a redline and marking weights as optional, but it leaves "the six dimensions" unnamed and never explains the weight values' meaning or interaction with scores, so the nested options/weights objects are only half-covered.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Rank 2+ options"), states the scale ("scored 1-5") and what a high score means ("5 = best for you"), and explains the redline rule. It does not distinguish itself from the related six_dimension_checklist sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "2+ options" establishes the minimum input, and "optional weights" signals the weighting path, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over six_dimension_checklist or calculate_runway. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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