compare_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the comparison output. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Compare two services') and specifies the comparison attributes. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. This results in a minimal viable description that may require additional context for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'slug_a' and 'slug_b' as service slugs. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters are used for comparison, but it doesn't provide additional context such as slug format, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Compare two services side by side (pricing, ratings, protocol, status).' It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'services,' with explicit attributes for comparison. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_service' or 'find_best_service,' which might also involve service evaluation, leaving room for ambiguity.

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. The description mentions comparing two services but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this is preferred over siblings like 'discover_services' or 'find_best_service.' This lack of direction could lead to misuse or confusion in tool selection.

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