Compare Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 8-credit cost and details the analytical output structure (winner, differed attributes, shared strengths, testable lessons, next experiment), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, but the final clause ('Use when two posts differ...') largely repeats the earlier trigger ('why did this one work and that one not'), and there is a spacing typo ('credits.Use'). It earns a passing but not exemplary score.

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 one-parameter tool with a rich output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description is complete: it specifies the allowed input count, the business trigger, the cost, and the analytical output. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, urls, as '2-5 post URLs to compare.', and the description merely repeats the 2-5 range. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new semantic value, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Compare 2-5 posts side by side'), the resource (posts), and the unique output (performance gap explanation with winner, differences, strengths, lessons, next experiment). The focus on multi-post performance comparison clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_post or analyze_post_fast.

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?

Explicitly provides a use condition: 'Use when two posts differ in performance and you need to know why' and a plain-language trigger ('why did this one work and that one not'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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