Compare visas

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

The description discloses the return values comprehensively (processing time, cost, validity, PR-pathway, delta summary). With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral expectations. It does not mention potential errors or data freshness, but for a comparison tool this is sufficient.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the return fields. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It explains both the action and the expected result. It could optionally mention that it requires 2-3 items, but that is already enforced by the schema.

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% as the only parameter 'visa_ids' already has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Compare' and the resource 'visa pathways side-by-side'. It lists specific output fields (processing time, cost, validity, PR-pathway, delta summary), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings which provide single visa details or matching.

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 that the tool should be used when comparing 2-3 visa pathways and mentions how to obtain visa ids via transita_match_visas or the transita://visas resource. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-comparison scenarios.

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