report_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the output is a side-by-side comparison and adds a somewhat cryptic note that the feature axis is 'semantic' and 'derived by you from the descriptions,' indicating the raw text is relevant. However, it leaves the mechanics of the comparison, any requirements for the shortlist, and possible limitations unexplored.

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 short and gets the main idea across in the first sentence, but the second sentence, 'The feature axis is semantic and is derived by you from the descriptions — the data carries the raw text,' is vague and confusing. It does not clearly earn its place in the definition.

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?

For a report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition gives enough to understand that a side-by-side comparison is returned across several dimensions. It still leaves notable gaps: no concrete guidance on when to prefer this over report_app or report_competitor_deep, no explanation of what 'the feature axis is semantic' means for the agent, and no mention of output structure.

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 75%, and most parameter meaning is already captured: storefront, terms, and competitorAppIds each have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds high-level comparison axes but does not meaningfully explain ownAppId or refine parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 states a clear, specific task: a 'side-by-side comparison of your app against the SELECTED competitors on the shortlist.' The scope and covered dimensions (metadata, product page, monetization, keyword ranks) make the tool's function immediately obvious and distinguish it from sibling tools like report_app or report_competitor_deep.

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 explicitly scopes the tool to the selected competitors on the shortlist, which gives an agent clear context for when this comparison tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, but the shortlist-scoped framing is a useful selection signal.

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