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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds meaningful context about the tool returning 'live' and 'same-category' alternatives, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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: the first states the action and examples, the second provides usage and parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter, explicit read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description covers when to use it, how to interpret the parameter, and what it returns. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes the single parameter 'target' with an example. The description adds crucial clarification that 'target' is specifically a well-known tool's slug, not a listing slug from the catalog. This prevents misuse and adds value beyond the schema's coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'live, same-category alternatives to a well-known AI tool'. It provides concrete examples ('chatgpt', 'notion-ai', 'figma') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it is about alternatives to a named product, not catalog listings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Call this when a user asks what are the alternatives to X or wants competitors/substitutes for a named product.' It also clarifies the input format ('target is the well-known tool's slug, not a listing slug') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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