Compare two VR headsets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the data source (VR.org's curated catalog) and partial name matching behavior, which are not covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence summarizes the purpose and output, and the second adds a key usage detail (partial name acceptance). Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (price, badge, description, retailer links) and how to use the parameters. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions that already state partial match allowed. The description reinforces this but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The examples given are helpful but not essential.

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 returns a side-by-side comparison of two headsets with specific fields (price, badge, description, retailer links). This verb+resource combination is unique among siblings, none of which perform comparisons.

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 says to use it for comparing two headsets, accepts partial names, and provides examples like 'Quest 3' and 'PSVR2'. While it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient.

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