Prop Firm Deal Finder

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

Annotations declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: the data source scope ('database of 20+ firms'), output format ('Markdown comparison table'), and matching behavior ('partial matching supported'). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Excellent structure with clear sections (main description, Args, Returns, Examples). Information is front-loaded with the core value proposition. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler content. The examples section particularly aids comprehension without verbosity.

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 single-parameter tool with simple array input and 100% schema coverage, the description is comprehensive. It compensates for the lack of output schema by describing the return format (markdown table), provides usage examples, and documents constraints (2-10 firms). No significant gaps identified.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete usage examples (e.g., 'FTMO vs TradeDay') that illustrate the expected firm name formats and reinforces the partial matching capability, providing practical context beyond the schema's technical description.

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 'two or more prop firms side-by-side' and enumerates specific comparison dimensions (discount codes, profit splits, drawdown rules, etc.). The 'side-by-side' and 'comparison table' language effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_firm_details (single firm lookup) and search_firms (discovery).

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?

Provides clear context ('Perfect for helping traders decide between firms') and concrete examples showing comparison scenarios. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or direct contrast with siblings (e.g., not stating 'use get_firm_details instead for single firm information').

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