recommend

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: synchronous deterministic compute, no persistence, and no separate rate limit. It also discloses exactly what the response contains. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the most important facts. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, behavioral guarantees, return contents, and routing to siblings. There is no repetitive or filler language.

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 synchronous, non-persistent comparison tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains return fields, states behavioral guarantees, covers the minimum input requirement, and distinguishes from the two most relevant sibling tools. No additional information is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 documents the actions array and its variables object, but the description adds meaning by framing these as 'named actions/options' and clarifying the ranking output per action. It does not explicitly explain n_simulations, but the schema gives it a default value, and the description's focus on comparing named options compensates reasonably for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 core purpose with a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('multiple named actions/options'), and immediately clarifies the output is a ranked recommendation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools compare and simulate by naming them directly. This makes the tool's identity clear without needing to inspect any other schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when choosing between two or more alternatives with uncertainty. It also provides concrete routing guidance, telling the agent to use compare for named scenario deltas and simulate for a single scenario's full envelope. This is model guidance for alternative selection.

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