compareByRegion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a comparison table and top announcements list, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the returns take, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are sorted/filtered beyond the parameters.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second describes what it returns. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, how results are presented in the comparison table, what 'top announcements' means, or important behavioral constraints. The description leaves too much undefined for proper agent understanding.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema - it mentions comparing regions and filtering by field, but the schema already describes regions, field enum values, keyword filtering, maxPerRegion defaults, and source options with clear descriptions.

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 compares government support announcements across regions, listing number of announcements and field distribution, and returns a comparison table and top announcements. It specifies the resource (government support announcements) and action (compare by region), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like searchGovernmentSupport or other search tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions what the tool does, it doesn't indicate when this comparison functionality is appropriate versus using search tools, eligibility checks, or other sibling tools for different purposes.

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