Compare keyboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the first item is the reference baseline for the "missing keys" delta, and the result includes desk/mouse room gained, which the annotations do not convey.

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 purpose and output summary are front-loaded and tight, but roughly half the text is a 31-item keyboard name dump. The list is functional as an enumeration aid, yet it bloats the description and would be better placed in schema examples.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (width, depth, key count, missing keys vs. first, desk/mouse room gained), which it does well. Input forms and the reference-baseline rule are covered; only explicit alternative-tool routing is absent.

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% (both params documented, including the "first is reference" note and ISO layout meaning). The description still adds value by enumerating the valid reviewed keyboard names an agent can pass, reducing guesswork for the open-ended string array, plus restating the two-to-six bound.

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?

Specific verb (compare) plus resource (keyboards) with explicit scope (two to six items, side-by-side dimensions). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_keyboard_dimensions (single lookup) and check_desk_fit (fit check) by naming the exact output dimensions it produces.

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 implies context by declaring accepted input forms (sizes such as "TKL"/"60", or reviewed keyboard names) and what the comparison returns, which helps an agent decide to use it. However, it never states when to prefer this over check_desk_fit or get_keyboard_dimensions, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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