compare_deals

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds useful behavior by naming compared fields and stating results are ordered "best value first," but it does not explain the mode parameter or any limits beyond the 2-5 count.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key action, input range, compared fields, and ordering front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are less necessary in the description. Still, for a tool with an unexplained mode parameter and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves meaningful gaps about how the comparison behaves in different modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only indirectly implies that the ids input should contain 2-5 deal identifiers. The mode parameter is completely undocumented, leaving an agent without guidance on what "full" means or what other values might do.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ("Compare ... deals") plus comparison fields and output ordering, so the core purpose is specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as search_deals, get_deal, or compare_gpu_prices, so it falls short of a 5.

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 2-5 deal constraint gives some usage context, implying this is for small side-by-side comparisons rather than listing or retrieving one deal. However, it never says when to use this instead of search_deals or get_deal, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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