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

Annotations already mark the call read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: it evaluates the whole pilot before applying limit, separates match/unresolved/mismatch, warns that coverage is catalogue not market, and explains pagination/409 handling. It also states public read access and that there are no billing/business writes.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact, with no filler. However, fragments like 'IDs/context: /api/capabilities' and 'one call per POST' are cryptic and slightly interrupt the flow.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it does cover key behavioral caveats and retry/pagination. Still, for a 9-parameter tool with nested predicate and scenario inputs, the missing parameter semantics leave an agent without enough guidance for advanced calls.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description only glosses priority, reference_id, requirements, limit, and view; it does not explain criteria, cost_scenario, locale, context fields, or predicate operators/values. The complex nested Predicate/Scenario structures remain largely undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb/resource ('Find alternatives') and scope ('by required priority, optionally relative to one solution'). It distinguishes the task from plain retrieval, but it never names siblings like compare_solutions or search_solutions, so routing is not fully explicit.

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 the use case (finding alternatives for a priority) and gives operational handling for large results ('repeat arguments with view') and 409 retries, but it never says when to choose this over compare_solutions, search_solutions, or get_solution. No explicit exclusions are provided.

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