compare_apis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it compares APIs and summarizes auth/HTTPS, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error handling. The description is straightforward but lacks depth for a fully transparent 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 a single sentence of 14 words, very concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could include a bit more detail on output or usage without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, it leaves ambiguity about the output format (e.g., table, JSON), which could be important for an agent.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'category' and 'limit' already explained in the input schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional enrichment.

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 all APIs within a category side by side, specifying it provides a summary of auth and HTTPS support. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_detail (single API) and search_apis (generic search), giving a specific verb and resource.

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 usage when needing a side-by-side comparison of APIs in a category, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_api_detail or search_apis. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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