compare_brands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns per-platform scores, overall rankings, and relative strengths, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the tool's main purpose, followed by specific output details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return behavior (scores, rankings, strengths). It does not address edge cases like identical brand names or case sensitivity, but these are minor. The description is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema (brands as list of names, keyword as optional industry context). The description adds context about outputs but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare the AI visibility of multiple brands side by side.' It specifies the verb (compare), resource (AI visibility), and scope (multiple brands). The mention of output details (per-platform scores, rankings, strengths) further clarifies. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_brand_visibility' (single brand) and 'check_single_query' (single query).

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 to use the tool (when comparing multiple brands) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. With sibling tools focusing on single brands or single queries, the context is clear, but no direct guidance is provided.

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