compare_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the result is a relative ranking based on a distributor snapshot, not a live quote. This manages expectations about freshness and absolute accuracy. It does not discuss auth or errors, but for a read-only comparison tool the main caveat is present.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the output dimensions first and the important caveat in a parenthetical. There is no filler or repeated schema content; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers what is compared, what dimensions are returned, and the snapshot/live-quote caveat. It does not explicitly guide selection among siblings like find_parts or get_specs, but the input contract is fully specified in the schema.

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%, and the schema already explains that parts must be two or more IC part numbers with at least two priced for a verdict. The description only restates the concept of a set and adds no syntactic or formatting value, so baseline 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?

The description names the input resource (a set of IC part numbers) and the outputs (relative price tier, stock posture, library class), making the tool's function recognizable. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings like get_specs or lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from a distributor snapshot, not a live quote' gives useful context and an implied exclusion, and the schema adds the requirement of at least two priced parts. However, no alternative sibling tools are named and there is no explicit when-to-use statement, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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