plan_compare_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns plan comparisons in a requested format, which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, mention any prerequisites, or describe what the compact format contains.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose immediately followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a two-parameter comparison tool, the description covers inputs, output format choices, and the return behavior. It is mostly complete, but it could be strengthened by noting how plan IDs are obtained or by explicitly distinguishing this from sibling plan tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema. It does so effectively by explaining plan_ids as a list of plan IDs and format with its two allowed values and default. This adds real meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 a specific verb and resource: compare multiple plans side by side. It distinguishes itself from simple listing or retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like plan_get_plan or plan_search_plans_by_specs.

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 the tool should be used when a user has multiple plan IDs and wants a side-by-side comparison, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The context is understandable but left to inference given the large sibling list.

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