compare_agents

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

With no annotations, the description responsibly mentions return structure (scores, confidence, interaction counts) and limitation (max 10), but does not disclose authorization needs (access_token optional but unexplained) or error handling.

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?

Five concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy, each sentence adds 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?

Despite no output schema, description covers return values and constraints. Could mention error handling for invalid IDs, but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining score_type options and implying agent_ids purpose. It adds value over the schema, though access_token remains undocumented.

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 clearly states the action (compare) and resource (trust scores of multiple agents), and specifically mentions returning a ranked list, distinguishing it from siblings like check_trust which is for single agent checks.

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?

Provides explicit context (useful when choosing between agents), a limit (max 10), and defines score_type options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like check_trust_batch for non-comparison queries.

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