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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: same-owner products are excluded from ranking and surfaced in meta.query.family, while include_family moves them into the ranking flagged as same_estate. This reveals ranking logic and response metadata beyond what the annotation provides.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and it contains no filler. However, the second half packs several pieces of internal terminology into one long, semicolon-heavy sentence, making it slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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 read-only similarity search, it covers the core ranking behavior, the family/estate distinction, and the optional include_family switch, and it implicitly identifies the slug parameter as the provider to compare against. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the top-level response shape would have been helpful, but the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50%; slug and limit lack descriptions. The tool description gives 'given one' meaning to slug and explains the effect of include_family via meta.query.family and same_estate, but it does not compensate for the lack of limit semantics or add detail to context beyond the schema's own 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 names a specific operation — finding providers similar to a given one — and defines 'similar' concretely via shared tags, areas, industry, region, and artifact coverage. It also clarifies the distinction between rivals and same-owner products, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tool's context is clear: use it when you need provider alternatives, and use include_family when you want same-owner products included in the ranking. It does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools such as find_similar_apis or find_providers, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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