compare_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only describes the high-level function and does not disclose aspects like read-only nature, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is insufficient to fully inform an agent about operational constraints.

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 efficient: three short sentences with no unnecessary words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value (purpose, action, use case). There is no repetition or fluff.

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 existence of an output schema (reducing need to describe return values), the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the data sources and the validation use case. One could argue for a 3, but the presence of the output schema and clear purpose brings it to 4 – it covers the essential context for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds context that parameters define the path and band for comparison, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and this is met.

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 uses a specific verb ('Shows side-by-side data') and clearly identifies the resource (cross-dataset comparison for a path/band). It lists the distinct sources (WSPR, RBN, etc.) which differentiates it from sibling tools like path_analysis or band_openings that likely focus on single sources or other aspects.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for validating observations across independent measurement systems', implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools like path_analysis could be complementary, but no guidance is provided.

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