find_alternatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches in the same product category and returns better-rated options, but it does not mention important behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens if no alternatives are found. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and the category constraint. It could mention sorting or criteria ordering, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's context.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mostly restating that alternatives are based on health or ecological scores. With high 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 that it finds healthier or ecologically better alternatives to a product, searching within the same product category for better-rated options. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_product_by_barcode or search_food, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for finding alternatives based on health or ecological criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_nutrition_facts or get_eco_score. No when-not conditions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is implied but not explicit.

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