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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so safety needs no explanation. The description contributes real behavioral context beyond that: results come from curated lists first and degrade to same-category tools, which tells the agent what quality of answer to expect. It does not say what happens when no alternatives exist.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the sourcing behavior is stated before the usage trigger. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, a minor structural rough edge but not wasteful.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, where results come from, fallback behavior, and the user intent that triggers it. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 both parameters (tool, limit) are documented in the schema, including the 1-20 range and default of 8. The description adds nothing about slug vs display-name handling or how limit interacts with the fallback, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource (alternatives to a given AI tool) and the two sourcing strategies (curated alternative lists, same-category fallback), which separates it from get_ai_tool and search_ai_tools. The verb is implied by the noun phrase rather than stated, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

"Use it when the user wants to replace or switch off a product" gives a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as compare_ai_tools or search_ai_tools and when those would be preferred, so a little inference remains.

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