compare_offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without merging or inferring their offer terms', which is a key non-destructive behavioral trait. This adds value beyond the schema and clarifies what the tool does not do. However, it does not mention return format or potential errors, though an output schema exists, reducing that need.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 13 words. It front-loads the verb 'Retrieve' and immediately follows with the key constraints ('up to 10', 'selected', 'without merging'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior and key constraints. It does not provide explicit usage guidance or parameter definitions, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema mitigate these gaps. The description is concise yet sufficient for a straightforward retrieval operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'selected Doctor of Credit posts', which reasonably maps to the `post_ids` parameter, but it does not explicitly state that post_ids are the IDs of the posts to retrieve. The description gives context but leaves the exact mapping implicit. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Retrieve up to 10 selected Doctor of Credit posts together'. The verb 'Retrieve' and specific resource ('selected Doctor of Credit posts') make the purpose explicit. The qualifier 'without merging or inferring their offer terms' further distinguishes it from any analysis or processing, setting it apart from sibling tools like search_posts or get_big_deals.

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 a user needs to retrieve multiple specific posts at once, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no direct mention of sibling tools or exclusions, such as 'for a single post, use get_post'. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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