compare_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses that no engine call or modelling occurs, explains label matching rules (case- and punctuation-insensitive), specifies units, and details the return fields and diff formulas. This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Although long, every sentence earns its place by documenting the complex mapping and diff logic required for correct invocation.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and a complex comparison task, the description is complete. It even explains return values despite an output schema existing, and references `explain_method` for topic methodology, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: `external` is explained with an example, matching logic, and unit guidance; `quantra` is described as a pricing tool result or engine response, with which part is used. This adds substantial meaning absent from the schema.

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 and resource—'Put the user's numbers next to the engine's'—and explicitly differentiates from engine-calling tools with 'no engine call, no modelling'. An agent can immediately tell this is a comparison utility, not a pricing tool.

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?

It provides implied usage context by describing the two parameter types (external numbers and an engine result), but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the many pricing siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are named, so an agent must infer the usage scenario.

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