Search software tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: 'Every result carries the price, the vendor page it was read from, and the date it was checked.' This provenance detail aligns with the openWorldHint and tells the agent what data accompanies each hit, filling a real gap since there is no output schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the WHEN TO USE block is separated to aid scanning. Wording like 'right match' where 'best-match' would do is minor; overall every sentence earns its place with routing and result-shape information rather than filler.

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 5-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema, the description compensates well: it documents the free-text/category/free-tier/max-price filters, explains result contents (price, vendor page, check date) where an output schema would normally live, and completes the sibling routing. The only omission is pagination beyond the schema's default-10 limit, but all parameters are already fully documented in the schema.

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 documents all five parameters in detail (e.g., query 'Free-text match on name, category, tagline and features... right match first'; max_price 'Excludes quote-only tools'). The description's filter list merely paraphrases the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured definition — 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search TopAlternativesTo's catalogue of software tools') and enumerates the filter dimensions. It also differentiates from siblings by naming get_alternatives and get_tool directly, so an agent can distinguish the browse/filter path from the replace-specific-tool or get-full-detail paths without opening any schema.

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?

An explicit 'WHEN TO USE' block gives concrete example queries ('project management tools under 15 dollars', 'CRMs with a free plan') and states exactly when to route elsewhere: 'Use get_alternatives when the user wants to replace a specific tool, and get_tool for full detail on one.' This is firm, unambiguous routing guidance.

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