list_comparisons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields, ordering, status filtering, and that it does not consume credits. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, but the limit is in the schema, so this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then details. Every sentence earns its place, and the information density is high without being verbose.

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 simple list tool, the description is complete. It covers the return fields, ordering, status filter, use cases, and credit cost, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 both parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a small note about using status to find unfinished comparisons, but does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the verb ('List'), resource ('comparisons'), and scope ('in the workspace, newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing recent comparisons vs. getting a single comparison or exporting PDF.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'find a comparison id when you do not have one, to check recent activity, or to locate unfinished comparisons (status filter).' This implies when not to use it (when you already have an id, use get_comparison).

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