compare_exams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states input flexibility (ids, codes, or names) and output behavior (each row links a free practice exam). It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or any side effects, but as a read-only comparison tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 pack purpose, usage examples, input details, and output behavior. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema, the description hints at output ('side by side', 'each row links...'). It covers input types, use cases, and a key output feature. Missing details on error handling or return format, but for a simple comparison tool with one parameter, it is largely complete.

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 a clear description for the only parameter 'exams'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema (input types and range already covered). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: compare 2-8 certification exams side by side on specific attributes (price, duration, etc.). It also provides example intents ('X vs Y', 'which is harder/cheaper') that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_exam_blueprint (single exam) and search_exams (broad search).

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 gives explicit when-to-use examples ('X vs Y', 'which is harder/cheaper') and implies when not to use (e.g., single exam details go to get_exam_blueprint). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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