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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds useful context such as 'live' (real-time data) and 'same-category' (filtering criteria). It also warns that target is a well-known tool slug, not a listing slug, which helps prevent misuse. No contradiction 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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance and parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, usage trigger, and parameter clarification. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 documents the target parameter well, but the description adds significant meaning by explicitly stating it is the well-known tool's slug and not a listing slug from this catalog. This distinction is critical for correct usage and goes beyond the schema description.

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 lists live, same-category alternatives to a well-known AI tool, with specific examples. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the clarification about target being a well-known tool's slug distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tools or get_tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to call this tool ('when a user asks what are the alternatives to X or wants competitors/substitutes') and clarifies that target is not a listing slug from this catalog. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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