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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: the ranking order (same primary job, then secondary job, then remaining categories), the shape of the return (anchor + alternatives + total count), and licensing/attribution obligations (hand-verified, CC-BY-4.0, infrabase_url). Only pagination/truncation behavior is left unstated.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ranking rule, with no filler. The trailing license/attribution fragments are terse but earn their place by setting an attribution expectation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return payload and ordering. Combined with fully documented parameters and a complete annotation set, only edge behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown slug or an empty alternative set) 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 100%, with slug, limit, and eu_only fully documented including format and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ("Find alternatives to an AI infrastructure product listed on Infrabase.ai") and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tool or search_tools by being the alternative-discovery operation. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 workflow (you need an anchor product slug, which the schema notes comes from search_tools), but never states explicitly when to prefer this over get_tool or search_tools, and gives no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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