compare_print_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that it runs a local cost estimate and optionally a fulfillment quote, returning a side-by-side comparison. It does not disclose any destructive actions, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic workflow.

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 structured with a summary sentence, a brief workflow explanation, and a bullet-like Args section. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While concise, the Args section could be formatted more cleanly (e.g., actual bullet points) for better readability.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers conditional behavior and parameter defaults. However, it does not detail the return value structure beyond 'side-by-side comparison', which is a gap since no output schema exists.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including purpose, defaults, and conditional usage (e.g., file_path explanation, fulfillment_material_id omitted skips fulfillment). This adds significant value beyond the schema definitions.

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 local printing cost vs. outsourced manufacturing, with specific verb 'compare' and resource 'print options'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compare_material_properties' by focusing on cost 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 description explains when to use the tool (to compare costs) and includes conditional behavior: if G-code is provided, only local estimate; if fulfillment_material_id omitted, skip fulfillment quote. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor mention alternatives such as 'estimate_cost' or 'fulfillment_quote'.

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