Compare Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-value details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error conditions. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and using an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose content.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, arguments, and return value. However, it lacks detail on the exact output format or any caveats, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'slugs' parameter, including min/max constraints and a description. The tool description repeats the 2-5 constraint and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Compare') with a resource ('multiple agents') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on side-by-side comparison. The return details (pricing, capabilities, recommendations) add specificity and clarify the tool's unique value.

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 comparing 2-5 agents side-by-side, but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to prefer this over yagoo_get_agent or yagoo_search. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so guidance is present but only implicit.

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