Compare tool summaries

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that results are short summaries and that full details live elsewhere, which sets expectations for a deliberately truncated output.

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 that enumerates exactly which summary fields are compared and closes with the scope limit. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what's needed: which summary fields come back and that detail is intentionally shallow. It lacks only guidance on mismatched-category slugs or result ordering, which is minor for a read-only comparator.

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 the 2-3 item bound and the same-category constraint. The description's 'two or three tools in one category' restates the schema rather than adding format, ordering, or error-handling semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (short summaries of purpose, quota, pros, cons, catch) for two or three tools, which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_tools. The 'full details remain on SaaS Puppy' clause sharpens the scope by signaling this is a condensed view, though it never names list_tools as the alternative.

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 implies when this applies (two or three tools within one category) but never tells the agent when to pick it over list_tools or what to do if the tools span different categories. 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.