Compare products

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the specs keying is {section: {spec: values}} with values ordered per product, and specs no product fills are omitted – details an agent couldn't infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then two compact sentences on specs shape and routing. Efficient, though the specs-shape sentence is dense and the line breaking is slightly odd.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still usefully explains the specs structure. It could be more complete on category-comparison limitations or error behavior, but for a 1-param read-only tool it's solid.

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% and the schema already documents the format, pattern, and 2-5 range. The description restates the 2-5 constraint and adds the ordering rule for specs values, but that ordering pertains to the return shape rather than the parameter itself, so it's roughly baseline.

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 (products) with scope (2-5, side by side). It also distinguishes from the sibling tl_product by explicitly routing single-product seller/color needs there.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule to tl_product for the seller/color use case and notes that same-category products compare best. It doesn't, however, cover the other ~17 siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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