Compare agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds concurrency ('in parallel'), the read-only qualifier and the 2-5 bound, which is real context. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false implication or what the side-by-side return looks like, so the added value is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the fan-out count, the safety qualifier and the result shape. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Safety is covered by annotations and there is no output schema to explain, but for a 4-parameter tool with a nested `output_schema` object, the description omits what `workdir` controls and how the parallel answers are returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: `agents` and `output_schema` are documented in the schema, while `prompt` and `workdir` are not. The description repeats the '2-5 agents' bound already in the schema and says nothing about `workdir` or how `output_schema` changes the response shape, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb (send one prompt) and resource (2-5 agents), plus the output shape (answers side by side). It implicitly contrasts with the single-agent sibling `ask`, but never names it, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool list.

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 parallel multi-agent framing implies the use case (comparing several agents on one prompt), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of `ask` as the single-agent alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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