Pricing Page Comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, openWorldHint true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: output is heuristic and page-level, and clarifies what the tool does not do (mapping every price or normalizing regional billing). No contradictions.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with key information. Every word adds value—no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately explains the tool's behavior, limitations, and usage. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional clarification.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra context about how the parameters are used (name as label in output, url as page URL) and the overall purpose, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('public pricing pages') and clearly defines the scope (two to five, side-by-side). It distinguishes this tool from siblings such as 'compare_competitors' and 'check_pricing' by focusing on live, heuristic comparison of visible prices and signals.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you want a quick, live comparison...' and sets expectations by noting limitations (heuristic, page-level, does not map every price or normalize regional differences). It provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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