Compare two coffees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds clarity about what the comparison includes but does not add further behavioral details such as output structure, ordering, or handling of ambiguous coffee names. This matches the baseline expectation when annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and key output dimensions. Every element earns its place, with no redundant wording or repetition of schema information.

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 description lists the specific comparison facets, which effectively serves as an informal output description given that no output schema exists. The schema covers both required parameters, annotations cover safety, and the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 both coffee_a and coffee_b described as 'id or name'. The description refers to 'two coffees' but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 action (compare), the resource (two coffees), and the scope (side-by-side comparison of roast, body/acidity/sweetness, flavors, brew methods, and price). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_coffee, which targets a single coffee, and find_similar, which implies recommendation rather than direct comparison.

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 phrase 'side-by-side comparison' and the two coffee parameters make the intended use clear: when an agent needs to compare two specific coffees. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with the sibling tools is strongly implied by the 'two coffees' framing.

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