compare_exams

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that each output row links a free practice exam and that input accepts multiple identifier types. However, it does not discuss auth needs, rate limits, or any destructive actions, leaving some gaps.

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: first sentence states core purpose and what is compared; second sentence adds usage examples and input variations. No redundant or vague wording. Information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple comparison tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input types, output feature (practice exam links), and typical user intents. Lacks explicit return format but sufficient for agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% for the sole parameter. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the comparison context and the metrics displayed, and by providing usage examples that clarify the parameter's purpose.

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?

Clearly states verb 'compare', resource 'certification exams', and lists specific metrics (price, duration, passing score, question count, domain count). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_exam_blueprint (single exam details) and search_exams (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?

Provides explicit use cases (e.g., 'X vs Y', 'which is harder/cheaper') and acceptable input types (ids, codes, names). Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the examples effectively guide the agent.

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