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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the ranking factors behind the match percentage: same category, price distance, product type, same store. It does not describe result ordering beyond 'ranked' or any result-count limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the input, the output, and the scoring factors with no filler. The trailing parenthetical is dense but each element earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description explains both the return shape (ranked alternatives with a match percentage) and the criteria behind it. That is close to complete, with only id format and result limits unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes only its type and required status. The description adds a useful qualifier ('Avahit product id'), but does not specify the format or where the id comes from, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb (return ranked alternatives) plus the resource (alternatives for a given Avahit product id) and even names the ranking signal. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_products and get_price_history, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_products or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'Given an Avahit product id.'

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