Compare Source Entries

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does meaningfully disclose that the tool does not rank models or declare a best choice, which is a behavioral trait an agent might incorrectly assume from the name 'compare'. The side-by-side framing also suggests a display-oriented read operation, though it does not explicitly state side effects or return format.

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 with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the important non-ranking qualifier is placed second. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description communicates the essential behavior: side-by-side comparison without ranking. It does not describe the return structure in detail, but 'side by side' reasonably conveys the output concept. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could be slightly richer about what fields are shown.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including min/max items and a description stating 'Two to six entry IDs'. The description adds 'using source fields' but does not add significant new meaning about the ids parameter itself. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: placing two to six entries side by side using source fields. It also distinguishes the tool from any ranking or best-choice functionality, which is a meaningful differentiation from siblings like list_entries or get_entry. The verb 'place' plus the resource 'entries' makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a side-by-side comparison of multiple source entries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_entry or get_related_entries. The 'does not rank' clause adds a useful exclusion, but the guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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