compare_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'City comparison statistics,' but does not detail what these statistics include, how data is sourced, any rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient. However, the 'Returns' section is vague, slightly reducing its conciseness.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more to compensate for the missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema, such as examples for 'value_column' (e.g., 'PM2.5') and default values for 'table' and 'cities.' However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving parameters like 'cities' and 'table' partially explained but not comprehensively.

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 purpose: 'Compare a metric across cities.' It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'cities,' making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_city_profile' or 'plot_comparison,' which might have overlapping functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'compare_cities' over 'plot_comparison' or 'get_city_profile' for similar tasks. This lack of usage instructions limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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