scorecard_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool compares specific metrics, which is consistent. No contradictions or additional behavioral traits needed.

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 succinct sentences cover purpose and usage with no unnecessary words. Front-loads key action and metrics.

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 single parameter, readOnlyHint, and no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent what to input and what to expect (side-by-side comparison on metrics). Could mention return format but not critical.

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 a parameter description. The description adds example formats (e.g., 'Harvard,MIT,Stanford') and clarifies that school names are for searching and comparing, enhancing schema semantics.

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 specific colleges on cost, graduation rate, earnings, and debt. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/query/top tools by emphasizing side-by-side 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?

The description tells the agent to provide school names and implies comparison. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the mention of 'side-by-side' and the context of siblings make usage clear.

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