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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds output semantics (verdict, ranked list, price, why leave) and the nuance that 'staying put' may be a valid result. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like handling of invalid slugs, empty results, or data freshness. Given annotations carry the read-only nature, the description's added behavioral context is modest.

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 about two sentences plus a usage clause, roughly 60 words. It conveys purpose, output composition, and usage in a compact manner. The only critique is that the WHEN TO USE clause is placed at the end rather than front-loaded, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it defines what the tool returns (verdict, ranked list, price, reasons), the input (slug), and the trigger conditions. The mention of 'staying put' as a valid outcome adds completeness. No critical information 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%, and the schema already explains that the slug parameter is the 'Slug of the tool being replaced, for example zendesk.' The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it provides no extra value; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (returns) and resource (ranked alternatives to a given tool), and details the exact output: verdict, ranked list with prices, and reasons teams leave. This distinguishes it from siblings get_tool (which returns a single tool) and search_tools (which searches broadly).

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?

Explicitly provides a WHEN TO USE section listing query patterns like 'alternatives to X', 'replace X', 'X competitors', and 'something cheaper than X'. This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over siblings, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions, the conditions effectively indicate when not to use it.

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