compare_needs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is being compared across each need, but says nothing about cost, permissions, run_id scoping, ordering, or limits on the number of need_ids. It leaves key operational traits undocumented.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the comparison dimensions without any filler. Nothing 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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the dimension list is helpful. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the definition under-specifies run_id handling and invocation constraints for a two-required-parameter tool.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: run_id is never mentioned, and need_ids is only obliquely implied by 'multiple need clusters'. An agent gets no guidance on the run context or the ID list format.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (need clusters), and enumerates the comparison dimensions: prevalence, intensity, workaround burden, cross-source convergence. It implicitly distinguishes itself from inspect_need (single need) via 'multiple', but never names a sibling, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

'Multiple need clusters' implies this is for comparing two or more needs rather than inspecting one, which is a weak usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternatives like inspect_need for single needs or compare_evidence for a different resource type.

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