Compare Offers

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the read-only annotations: catalog caching up to 60 seconds, no substitute if an offer disappears, expected_price_rial as optional price-change detection, currency (IRR), difference direction and shipping exclusion, zero-based pair indexes, non-equivalence of matching names/attributes, and error isolation. All details are consistent with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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-loads the core purpose ('Compare 2-6 explicit seller offers...') and then packs in useful constraints. The description is dense but each sentence contributes operational information, with only minor fragmentation across many short clauses.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides strong behavioral and comparison semantics. It is nearly complete, though the absence of schema parameter descriptions means a few input fields (market, product_id, location) receive no explicit explanation.

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 description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies offer_id (not variant_id or seller_id), expected_price_rial, money units, and pair index ordering, but leaves market, product_id, and location undocumented beyond their schema constraints.

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 and resource ('Compare 2-6 explicit seller offers') with scope and source ('from get_product results'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as compare_product_sellers or compare_products, so sibling distinction is left to inference.

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?

Implies usage context by specifying 'from get_product results' and gives constraints such as using offer_id rather than variant_id or seller_id. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like compare_product_sellers, nor when not to use it.

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