compare_vendors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns 'free tier limits, risk levels, pricing history, and alternatives', which helps understand output. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and output. However, it lacks details on error cases or limitations (e.g., vendor name formats), which could enhance completeness for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of the 'vendors' parameter: '1 or 2 vendor names' with implications for functionality (risk check vs. comparison), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical description.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('compare side-by-side', 'check pricing risk') and resources ('vendors'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'plan_stack', 'search_deals', and 'track_changes' by focusing on vendor comparison and risk assessment rather than planning, searching, or tracking.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: '1 vendor = risk check' and '2 vendors = side-by-side comparison', providing clear guidance on usage scenarios without needing to reference alternatives, as the context is self-contained and distinct from sibling tools.

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