cc_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output as a domain×crawl matrix and mentions a single scan, which implies an efficient batch operation. However, it does not describe any side effects, permissions, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose and output structure, the second explains the cost advantage. Every word contributes value and information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, which covers return value structure, but lacks annotations and has minimal parameter explanation. The description is clear about purpose and efficiency but omits details like how last_n works, what constitutes a 'scan', and prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple comparison tool but not 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'domains' or 'last_n'. It only alludes to 'several domains' but provides no semantic guidance for parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Сравнить' (compare) with a clear resource ('несколько доменов... по кравлам') and explicitly describes the output as a 'матрица домен × кравл'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on multi-domain comparison and even references the alternative cc_dynamics.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Один скан на все домены — дешевле, чем вызывать cc_dynamics по очереди' (one scan for all domains is cheaper than calling cc_dynamics one by one). This gives an explicit alternative and a reason to prefer this tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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