find_alternatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a live GitHub check, the three-tier verdict vocabulary, and the specific risk factors evaluated (abandoned, archived, bus factor, source-available license, recent relicensing, young & unproven). It leaves out operational traits such as GitHub API auth needs, rate limits, and latency, which matters for a tool that fetches many repos per call.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then the verdict output. The parenthetical risk-factor list is informative rather than wasteful, though the sentence is long enough that a reader has to hold several clauses at once.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by naming the verdict values and the reasons returned for each candidate. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter tool; the main gap is what each candidate record contains (repo URL, stars, last-commit data) and whether the search itself is live.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the example values that duplicate the schema's own example. The implicit relationship between "each one" and the limit parameter is not spelled out, so 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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ("Find open-source alternatives to a proprietary tool or SaaS") and adds a second phase ("vet each one live from GitHub") with concrete output labels. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling vet_repo, which the "vet each one" phrasing partially overlaps with.

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?

Usage is implied through input examples ("notion", "intercom") and the phrase "proprietary tool or SaaS", which tells an agent the right kind of input. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to vet_repo for single-repo checks, so routing between the two siblings is left to inference.

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