compare_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or has side effects (e.g., saving forecasts). It only describes the output, missing behavioral traits.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds input/output specifics. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the main action.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs (scenarios with promo period and discount) and outputs (table with projections, confidence bands, recommendation). It could mention configurable parameters like horizon_days, but the schema provides those details. Almost complete.

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% (no description of parameters in tool description), but the description summarizes that each scenario requires a promo period and discount depth. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it does not cover all parameters (e.g., horizon_days, context_days). Partially compensates for low coverage.

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'), resource ('promotional scenarios'), and method ('what-if forecasting'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like compare_periods by focusing on scenario comparison with discount and period inputs. The output format (markdown table with projections and recommendation) is also specified.

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 2-4 promotional scenarios, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., compare_periods or analyze_promotion), nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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