compare_workers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, ensuring the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by revealing 'DEMO data', indicating results are simulated—a crucial behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two sentences plus a parallelism line). The 'DEMO data' is essential and front-loaded. The extra Thumbtack/Bark/Houzz mention is somewhat extraneous but not wasteful. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it's efficient overall.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It sets clear expectations (comparing reputation scores). The 'DEMO data' caveat addresses data authenticity. However, it might be improved by noting the number of profiles allowed (e.g., max 5?). Overall, sufficiently complete for a simple read-only comparison tool.

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%, so the schema sufficiently documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it reinforces that comparison is 'for a specific job', aligning with the 'required_skill' parameter. No extra format or constraint details are provided, so baseline 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 'Compare the reputation scores of multiple workers for a specific job', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_reputation_profile' (likely single worker) and 'create_worker_profile' (creation). The Western parallel adds context without obscuring purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to compare vs. using 'get_reputation_profile' for a single worker). The 'DEMO data' hint suggests it may be for testing only, but this is not clearly stated as a usage constraint.

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