Comparison Coach

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior or mention any auth requirements, rate limits, or output characteristics.

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 extremely short but lacks structure and informative content. The group label and example request body do not compensate for the lack of clear explanation, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 tool has nested objects, 4 parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the coaching produces, how to interpret results, or any additional context needed for correct invocation.

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 50%, and the description only provides an example request body without explaining parameter semantics. The question and language parameters are not elaborated, adding little value over 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 'Coach two charts on relationship dynamics' is vague. 'Coach' is an ambiguous verb, and the tool does not clearly state that it performs AI-powered astrological comparison. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like synastry or horoscope_compatibility.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools for relationship analysis, there is no description of context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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