compare_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (comparative analysis with ranking and recommendation) and output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds value by explaining the ranking and recommendation aspects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output behavior and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the Args section is clearly separated for quick reference.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, comparative analysis), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, output (ranking with recommendation and reasoning), and parameters well, but could benefit from more behavioral context like data sources or limitations.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for both parameters: 'services' as 'List of service slugs to compare (max 10)' and 'sort_by' as 'Metric to sort by' with enumerated values. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('compare reliability ratings', 'see which provider has the best track record') and resources ('multiple services', 'uptime, latency, and real-world reliability'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on comparative analysis rather than individual checks or reporting outcomes.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('compare reliability ratings across multiple services side by side'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (check_reliability, report_outcome). The comparative nature is implied to differentiate it from single-service checks.

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