Compare Markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses non-mutation ('without touching any basket'), that the underlying toom stock endpoint is queried, that quantities are capped at the requested amount, and that markets are ordered complete-before-partial and best-first.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tight, scannable paragraphs for defaults, article source, and result ordering. Some lines are telegraphic and fragmentary (code-formatted terms in prose), slightly reducing readability.

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 spelled out, yet the description usefully adds the result ordering rule. Together with the documented input defaults, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents the `items` shape with a literal example ({"sku": "...", "quantity": 2}), the `markets` default source, and the `from_market` fallback semantics. Left without any type/format note for `markets` entries themselves.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('check articles against several markets') plus a key scope constraint ('without touching any basket'). However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling compare_articles, so an agent has to guess which of the two comparison tools fits a given request.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: markets defaults to T00MY_HOME_MARKETS, and articles fall back to the from_market/current-market basket when `items` is omitted. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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