Compare Bubbles

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the comparative/analytical behavior but does not disclose output format or determinism. With annotations, this is acceptable but adds limited extra context beyond the purpose.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'compare' and avoids any fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a bubble ID or explanation). The goal parameter is optional per schema but implied as required in the description, and usage context could be more explicit regarding prerequisites and alternatives.

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%, and the description does not explain the goal enum values (content, product_idea, launch, distribution) or what 'strongest' means. bubble_ids is self-explanatory but still not explicitly described, leaving the agent with limited guidance on parameter semantics.

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 verb ('compare'), resource ('Bubbles'), scope ('two to five'), and outcome ('recommend the strongest one for a specific goal'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bubbles, search_bubbles, and get_bubble_details.

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 when to use this tool (when comparing multiple bubbles for a goal) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear enough with no exclusions mentioned.

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