compare_neighborhoods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. However, it omits key details: whether the operation is read-only (likely but not stated), authentication requirements, what happens if fewer than 2 neighborhoods are provided (schema says min 2 but no description), and the return format or structure.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is 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?

Given the lack of output schema and many sibling tools, the description should ideally provide more context about return value, edge cases (e.g., invalid neighborhood names), and authorization. While it covers the basic intent, it is not fully complete for an AI agent to reliably 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 schema already describes the parameter 'bairros' with 100% coverage (list of names/codes, min 2). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score of 3.

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 specifies 'comparar dados demográficos, habitacionais e de saneamento de múltiplos bairros de Natal' which clearly states the verb (compare) and resource (multiple neighborhoods' data across three categories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_neighborhood_demographics (single metric, single neighborhood) and compare_gdp_neighbors (specific to GDP).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies broad comparison, there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if only one metric is needed) or reference to sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific data types.

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