decide_compare_two

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the high-level purpose, not what the tool returns, whether it's read-only, how it processes criteria and scores, or any side effects. The 'head-to-head' hint is the only behavioral detail, insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and it front-loads the action ('DECIDE'). However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic, as it lacks structure and detail. It is not verbose, but it fails to provide necessary context.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is a single fragment that does not cover what inputs are needed, how they are structured, what the return value is, or any edge cases. An agent would be completely lost invoking this tool 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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'two options' but doesn't map to option_a, option_b, options, criteria, scores, or method. There is no information about required fields or how they relate to the decision process.

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 states the tool's core function: deciding between exactly two options ('head-to-head'). The verb 'DECIDE' and the resource 'two options' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like sim_compare (which is simulation-based) and decide (which likely handles more options). However, it is terse and could be clearer about the decision output.

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 the tool is for comparing two options but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name sibling tools like 'decide' for other scenarios. The only clue is 'exactly two options,' which is a weak implicit constraint.

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