buygit_compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals graceful handling of unknown slugs (non-error 'not found' entries) and the range of listings compared. It does not mention safety or idempotency, but the read-only nature is implied.

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, both front-loaded with critical information: first sentence covers purpose and output fields, second covers usage and error handling. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and differentiation from siblings, making it complete for a comparison tool with one parameter.

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 only parameter 'slugs' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by linking slugs to prior tool results and specifying error behavior, which clarifies the parameter's meaning and expected format.

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 explicitly states 'Single-call side-by-side of 2-5 listings' with specific fields compared, clearly defining the verb (compare), resource (listings), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that equivalent workflows require 4+ calls and lack license compatibility data.

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 instructs to pass slugs from prior tool results and explains that unknown slugs return 'not found' entries instead of errors. It contrasts with alternative workflows, but does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool.

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