compare

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds value by detailing per-city source_status responses and explaining that missing city sources don't spoil the result (per-city degradation). More details on error handling for unsupported resources could further enhance transparency.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear header and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds relevant details without excess. Minor redundancy (e.g., rementioning source_status) is acceptable.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not fully explain the response structure beyond source_status per city. It covers key behavioral aspects and parameter semantics, but a brief description of the overall response format would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining both parameters: resource (supported values and examples) and cities (comma-separated slugs, max 28). It provides concrete constraints and examples, going beyond the bare schema. However, it could be more precise about slug format validation.

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 that the tool compares ONE resource across multiple cities in ONE response, providing per-city source_status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like weather or air_quality which handle single cities. The verb 'compare' and resource fan-out are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for multi-city comparison and mentions graceful degradation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual resource tools for single cities. A clearer distinction or recommendation would improve guidance.

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