Compare Articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real context: dimensions are numbers 'taken from what toom states', a missing dimension is absent (not zero), and stock reflects the selected market plus every market in `also_check`. It doesn't cover permissions or error behavior, but for a read-only comparison it is substantively informative.

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?

Leads with the action and scope, then explains the `characteristics` output and the dimension/stock rules. Every sentence carries information, though the middle clause about `characteristics` is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be fully spelled out, yet the description still usefully frames how dimensions and stock are derived. Combined with the coverage of the two optional params, an agent has enough to invoke correctly, missing only SKU format detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `market` (the selected market governing stock) and `also_check` (additional markets whose stock is returned), and stresses the 2-6 article range for `skus`, but gives no format or syntax for the SKU strings themselves. Partial compensation only.

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?

Names a specific verb (compare) and resource (articles) with explicit scope ('2 to 6 articles side by side') and enumerates the comparison axes (price, brand, dimensions, stock, characteristics). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling compare_markets and from single-article tools like get_article.

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 '2 to 6' constraint implicitly tells the agent the required cardinality, and the emphasis on 'side by side' implies use when a comparative view is needed. However, it never explicitly states when to pick this over get_article or compare_markets, leaving selection to inference.

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