compare_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It doesn't mention any behavioral aspects beyond comparing scores (e.g., if it's read-only, requires auth, or has rate limits). However, the operation is inherently non-destructive, and the description adds the input format detail.

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 sentence plus a brief example, conveying all necessary information without waste. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately useful.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the what and how completely. The example clarifies the expected format. No further details are needed.

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 input schema only defines 'apis' as a string type. The description adds crucial meaning by specifying it expects comma-separated names and gives an example (e.g., 'polygon,twelvedata'). This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states it compares quality scores of multiple APIs side-by-side, which matches the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_score (which likely returns a single score) or check_health.

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 explicitly says to pass comma-separated names and provides an example. While it doesn't mention when to use alternatives, the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tools have distinct functions, so it's clear when to use this tool.

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