compare_advisories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the output is 'ranked from highest to lowest risk', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or likely output structure. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of advisory objects, risk levels, country names), nor does it mention error handling, limits, or performance considerations. For a comparison tool, the output format is critical context.

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 both parameters already described. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond stating that the tool accepts 'several destinations' (countries parameter) and that results are ranked. This is a baseline score given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: comparing travel advisories for multiple destinations and ranking them by risk. It distinguishes from siblings like get_travel_advisory (single country) and list_travel_advisories (all advisories, not sorted). However, it does not explicitly call out these alternatives.

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 provides a usage hint ('Useful for planning a multi-country trip') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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