qllm_compare

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

Discloses that failures are returned per provider and output format (JSON or Markdown), adding value beyond annotations which only set openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and a clear Args/Returns structure. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers key aspects: multiple providers, same prompt, per-provider failures, and return format. Could add default behavior (e.g., 'defaults to router top providers') but overall adequate given complex input schema.

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 comparative context ('Same fields as qllm_chat plus providers/max_providers'), but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all CompareInput fields, so the description adds limited new meaning.

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 ('Call multiple providers') and resource ('same prompt') with clear result ('return comparable results'). It distinguishes from siblings like qllm_chat by emphasizing multi-provider comparison.

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?

References qllm_chat as a baseline ('Same fields as qllm_chat plus providers/max_providers'), implying use for comparing providers instead of single provider calls. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios are given.

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