scorecard_compare

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds useful context about the comparison metrics (cost, graduation rate, earnings, debt) but doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like output format or potential limitations. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but no additional behavioral traits are revealed.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide a direct usage instruction. Every word adds value, with no superfluous detail.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand purpose and input. It doesn't describe the output format, but that is not critical for a direct comparison tool with a clear input type.

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%, with the 'schools' parameter fully described in the schema, including format examples. The description only restates 'Provide school names,' adding no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific colleges side-by-side on cost, graduation rate, earnings, and debt.' This provides a specific verb (compare), resource (colleges), and scope (specific, side-by-side), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scorecard_search or scorecard_top.

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 instruction 'Provide school names to search and compare' implies the tool is used when you have specific colleges in mind to compare. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for direct college comparisons.

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