compare_tools

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It lists the output fields (scores, stars, pricing, maintenance) but does not mention whether data is fetched live, potential errors, or any side effects. It is a read-only comparison, but that is inferred rather than explicit.

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 the core functionality and immediately followed by the output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (overall scores, GitHub stars, pricing, maintenance status). It omits error handling or invalid-slug behavior, but for a comparison tool of this simplicity, the coverage is solid.

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 coverage is 100% with an adequate description of the 'slugs' parameter, which already specifies array of strings and example. The tool description reinforces the 2-5 limit but adds no additional semantic detail 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 clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource ('2 to 5 tools') with specific criteria (scores, stars, pricing, maintenance). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_tool and search_tools by focusing on side-by-side 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 phrase 'Use this to help a user choose between alternatives' gives explicit context for when to invoke the tool. It does not enumerate exclusions, but the 2-5 slug limit implies it is not for single-tool lookup, and sibling names indicate alternatives exist.

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