Ürünleri karşılaştır

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context, which it does by disclosing the shape of the result: aligned specs with differences highlighted plus stock, MOQ, lead time, and price. It does not address failure modes such as an unresolvable product identifier or mixed-category comparisons, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and product-count constraint, followed by a compact list of compared dimensions. Nothing is redundant and no clause could be removed without losing information.

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, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it lists the compared fields and difference highlighting clearly. It stops short of noting edge-case behavior (invalid codes, out-of-range counts, unavailable price at quantity), which is the remaining gap.

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%, so parameter documentation is already complete. The description adds only marginal framing ('2-10 products', 'price at a given quantity') that overlaps the minItems/maxItems and quantity descriptions in the schema, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Compare 2-10 products side by side') and enumerates the compared dimensions: specs aligned by property with differing properties highlighted, stock, MOQ, lead time, and price. That is enough to separate it from single-product siblings like get_product or get_alternatives, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'compare' and the 2-10 range; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_alternatives, check_bom, or repeated get_product calls. An agent can infer the multi-product comparison scenario, but nothing tells it when this tool is the wrong choice.

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