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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only lookup ('Find ... alternatives'), requires a target slug rather than free-form input, and reveals a dependency on appboard_list_alternative_targets for slug resolution. It does not explicitly describe return shape, but 'find products' sufficiently implies a list of alternatives for this simple tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main purpose with illustrative examples, the required input format, and the differentiation from the most similar sibling plus a fallback for slug uncertainty. No filler, no repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what input to pass, how it differs from the confusing sibling, and where to get valid slugs. Nothing essential is missing 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 100%: the 'tool' parameter is already documented as an AppBoard target slug with examples 'product-hunt' or 'notion'. The description reinforces this by saying 'Pass the tool's target slug' and referencing the slug list, but adds little meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find products offered as alternatives to a tool the user ALREADY USES.' It includes concrete examples (Notion, Product Hunt, Zapier) and explicitly contrasts itself with appboard_find_alternatives, so an agent can unambiguously distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this one when the user names the tool they want to replace.' It also names the alternative for product-listed queries and directs to appboard_list_alternative_targets when the slug is unknown. This fully covers selection and routing.

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