compare_pages

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 tells the user what the tool outputs (differences in render time, template breakdown, recommendations) which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity about the operation's safety and prerequisites.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by practical use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague content. This is an example of concise, effective tool documentation.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return values (differences in render time, template breakdown, recommendations). For a comparatively simple 3-parameter tool, this covers the essential output aspects. Minor gaps include lack of detail on output format or error conditions, but the description is adequate for typical 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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level semantics beyond reiterating that pagePathA and pagePathB are the two pages to compare. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy descriptions.

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 function: 'Profile two pages on the same store and compare their performance side-by-side.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from single-page profilers like profile_page. The mention of 'render time, template breakdown, and recommendations' adds clarity about what the comparison includes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Great for A/B testing template changes or comparing product vs collection page performance.' This implies the tool is for comparative analysis rather than single-page profiling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use profile_page for single pages') or state when not to use it.

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