compare_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (scores, tiers, etc.) but lacks details on side effects (none expected), data freshness, error handling (e.g., invalid slugs), or response structure. For a read-only comparison, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidelines. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Excellent structure.

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 adequately explains return values (Laddoo score, tier, dimension scores, key claim verdicts). It specifies agent count range (2-5) and usage context. Missing details like data source recency or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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 100%, with descriptions for both the 'slugs' array and its items. The description adds context by referencing 'Hlido-reviewed agents' and example usage, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool performs a head-to-head comparison of 2-5 Hlido-reviewed agents, listing specific return values (Laddoo score, tier, dimension scores, key claim verdicts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_trusted and recommend by specifying the stage at which it's used (after shortlisting).

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use this once you've shortlisted candidates...and need a direct comparison.' Names alternative tools (find_trusted, find_similar_agents, recommend) as predecessors. This is model behavior for usage context.

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