Get ranked alternatives to a tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about what the tool returns: a verdict, a ranked list with prices, and why teams leave, plus the nuance that staying put is an option. It also implies an open-world knowledge base (consistent with openWorldHint). This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a richer behavioral picture.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the return content, and ends with a clear 'WHEN TO USE' section. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It is not overly verbose, though the first sentence is a bit rhetorical ('the question this site exists to answer'), which is minor. Overall, well-structured and concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the agent needs: the purpose, the return structure (verdict, ranked list, price, reasons), and the use cases. It does not describe output format or pagination, but for this simple tool and with no output schema, it is sufficiently complete. A small caveat is that it doesn't explain how the 'slug' is validated or what happens if not found, but that is minor.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug', which already describes it as 'Slug of the tool being replaced'. The description does not add further parameter-level detail (e.g., format variations or examples) beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 tool's purpose: to return alternatives to a given tool, including a verdict on which alternative fits which buyer situation and whether staying put is best. It is specific about the resource (a tool identified by slug) and the outcome (ranked alternatives with price and reasons teams leave). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tools (searching for tools) and get_tool (getting tool details), even without naming them.

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 provides explicit when-to-use triggers: any 'alternatives to X', 'replace X', 'X competitors', or 'something cheaper than X' question. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or contrast with sibling tools, so it lacks exclusions. The guidance is clear but could be strengthened by noting that it differs from search_tools (which finds tools) and get_tool (which fetches details).

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