Compare courses

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the `best` block names the cheapest, longest, most popular and best-rated course, and discloses the 50+ review threshold for the rating winner, plus that prices are in Toman. It stops short of describing result ordering or how ties/missing data are handled, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by input provenance, then output semantics. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 a single parameter at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the compared fields and defining the `best` selection rules and the review threshold. Minor gaps remain around tie-breaking, handling of fewer than 50 reviews, or invalid slugs, but an agent can call this correctly as written.

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 schema already documents the 2-4 slug array, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by broadening the provenance of slugs to fr_related_courses, which the schema's own description omits (it mentions only fr_search_courses), helping the agent source valid inputs.

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 and resource ('Compare 2-4 Faradars courses side by side') and enumerates the exact facets returned: price, sale, length, lessons, students, rating, certificate, exams. It also distinguishes itself from the single-course sibling by naming fr_course as the tool for one course's details.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage to 2-4 courses, tells the agent where the slugs come from (fr_search_courses or fr_related_courses), and redirects to fr_course for single-course details. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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