mf_compare

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. 'Compare' implies a read operation, but this is not made explicit.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the attributes are listed efficiently.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It adequately conveys the purpose and parameter usage, though it could benefit from stating that it is a read-only operation given no annotations.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that scheme_ids refer to funds and enforces a constraint of 2-4 elements, which is not present in the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb (compare), resource (funds), and scope (2-4 funds) with the attributes compared (returns, risk ratios, expense, rank). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like mf_detail (single fund) and mf_search (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 implies use for comparing 2-4 funds side-by-side, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., mf_detail for a single fund). No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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