compare_manufacturersCompare 2-5 custom plush manufacturers side by side to support sourcing decisions. Unknown slugs are flagged in a missing list instead of failing the entire request.
Return 2-5 records side by side for a sourcing decision. Unknown slugs are reported in missing instead of failing the whole call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes | 2-5 listing slugs from search_manufacturers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: unknown slugs are collected into `missing` rather than aborting the whole call, which is a partial-failure semantic an agent cannot infer from the schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the edge-case behavior second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it only explains the `missing` field. It never says what a 'side by side' record contains or how the 2-5 results are keyed/ordered, leaving the main return shape undocumented.
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 coverage is 100% and the single `slugs` parameter already documents its 2-5 range and origin in search_manufacturers, so the description only echoes that bound. The one added detail — that unresolvable slugs surface in `missing` instead of erroring — is useful but belongs to output behavior more than parameter meaning.
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?
Specific verb (compare, framed as 'return 2-5 records side by side') and resource (manufacturers). The 2-5 cardinality distinguishes it implicitly from the single-record sibling get_manufacturer, though no sibling is named.
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?
'for a sourcing decision' supplies a clear triggering context, and the 2-5 range scopes when the tool applies. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. call get_manufacturer for a single record) or stating exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.