get_substitutions

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

The annotations already state the tool is read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds context about the 'limit' parameter being enforced both upstream and locally, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response structure or filtering behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant verbiage. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it efficiently sized.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes a 'substitution', how the search options work, or what the return value contains. The good annotations help, but the description itself leaves significant gaps in 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only touches on the 'limit' parameter indirectly ('with the requested limit enforced upstream and locally') and says nothing about 'product_number', 'search_options', or 'exclude_marketplace'. This leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 action ('Find replacement products') and resource, making it easy to understand the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_alternate_packaging' or 'get_recommended_products', so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'with the requested limit enforced upstream and locally' describes a technical detail rather than usage context.

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