tokmeter_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that results are side-by-side across four metric classes, but says nothing about the default behavior when names are omitted (top entries), result limits, or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage condition second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 read-only comparison tool with full schema coverage, the description is serviceable, and it does name the metric categories since there is no output schema. But it omits the 'projects' comparison mode that the schema exposes and gives no hint about fallback behavior when names are not supplied.

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%, so all four parameters including both enums are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about compare_type values (omitting 'projects') or about how names, scope, and project interact, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (models/providers) plus the metric dimensions compared: cost, tokens, efficiency, usage. However it says 'models or providers' while the schema's compare_type enum also includes 'projects', leaving a gap and no differentiation from siblings like tokmeter_efficiency or tokmeter_leaderboard.

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 second sentence gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user wants to know which model or provider is cheaper, more efficient, or more heavily used'), which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions versus the many sibling tools that could plausibly answer similar questions.

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