compare_municipal_subsidies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: returns 5-10 nearby municipalities, currently same-prefecture, and is free. It does not disclose the output structure or error behavior, but for a read-only comparison tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and all information is relevant. No waste.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, the required parameter, and key constraints (same-prefecture, free). It does not mention optional parameters except implicitly, but the schema covers those. Overall, it's reasonably complete for an agent to invoke.

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 only 33% (only category has a description). The description adds that an anchor municipality_code is required and that categories are what get compared, but it does not explain max_municipalities at all. The stated '5-10' range also conflicts with the schema's max of 20, so it adds limited value.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Compare same-category subsidies across nearby municipalities.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_subsidies by focusing on same-category comparisons across nearby places rather than general search.

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 notes it is 'useful for relocation / siting decisions,' providing a concrete context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_subsidy_detail, so it lacks exclusions.

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