compare_operators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the comparison includes specific fields and outputs which operator is largest and whether they share a state. It also notes client-side matching. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, and the second provides a critical implementation detail. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: inputs, output highlights (largest, share state), and a key implementation detail. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what to provide, though it could mention potential errors if a name is not found.

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 already describes the 'names' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by stating that names are matched client-side and that at least 2 names are required, and it outlines the comparison outputs, which helps the agent understand what values to provide and what results to expect.

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 explicitly states it performs a side-by-side comparison of 2+ named operators, listing specific fields (state, fleet size, certNo, CRM status) and outputs (largest, share state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like competitive_landscape or market_summary, which focus on broader analyses rather than direct operator comparison.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when comparing 2+ named operators. It also gives a key constraint: names are matched client-side (no server text search), guiding the user on input format. However, it does not explicitly provide exclusions or suggest alternatives for different use cases.

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