Compare solutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions returning solutions side by side, but does not state whether this tool is read-only, any side effects, or constraints like required permissions. It lacks transparency beyond the basic function.

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 a single concise sentence that uses active voice and front-loads the key information (return 2 to 4 solutions). No unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It tells what the tool does and the range of solutions, but does not describe the output format, any sorting or ordering, or related constraints like required fields for comparison. It is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The schema describes the only parameter 'ids' with min/max items, but the description adds context that the output is a side-by-side comparison on the same fields. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining the purpose, but does not elaborate on the 'ids' parameter meaning or format.

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 tool returns 2 to 4 solutions side by side on the same fields, which provides a specific verb ('return') and resource ('solutions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_solutions' or 'get_solution' by emphasizing comparison.

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 this tool is for comparing multiple solutions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_solution' or 'search_solutions'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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