Structure a Decision

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are already provided. The description adds value by stating it does not choose or predict, confirming non-destructive behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about the tool's neutral role.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and inputs, the second clarifies a key limitation. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable.

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 no output schema, and the description does not describe the output format or what 'organize into a neutral comparison' means in practice. While annotations cover side effects, the description lacks detail on the structure of the output, which is important for an agent to know what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'options, facts, assumptions, constraints, and priorities', which aligns with schema parameters, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It repeats parameter names without deeper semantics.

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: 'Organize user-provided options, facts, assumptions, constraints, and priorities into a neutral comparison.' It also explicitly distinguishes what it does not do ('does not choose an option or predict an outcome'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'build_action_plan'.

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 a clear 'when to use' by stating it structures inputs neutrally and does not make choices, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it in favor of siblings. The context of sibling names fills some gaps, but the description itself is slightly vague on usage boundaries.

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