compare_compute

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe behavior. The description adds cross-provider comparison and matching logic context. No contradictions, but could detail output format or ordering.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second elaborates on what it finds. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It conveys core functionality and matching logic. Minor gap: does not specify return format or behavior when no matches found.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description restates 'vCPU and memory requirements' but does not add new meaning or mention the optional 'category' parameter, so baseline score applies.

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 compares VM/instance pricing across four cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP, OCI) and finds instances matching vCPU and memory requirements, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compare_gpu_shapes' or 'compare_storage'.

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?

Usage is clear: use this tool to compare compute pricing across providers based on specified resources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'find_cheapest_compute' or 'calculate_workload_cost', lacking exclusion guidance.

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