recommend_alternatives

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by implying the tool checks availability ('propose available products'). This adds a behavioral detail—filtering for availability—that is not explicitly stated in the annotations. It does not contradict the read-only nature.

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 concise and well-structured—two sentences that state the action and the usage condition. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only tool. It indicates the output (proposed products) without needing a formal output schema. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but given the straightforward nature, this is acceptable. A minor gap is not specifying the format of the returned products, but this is not critical.

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?

The description provides additional context for the 'sku' parameter by framing it as 'the customer wanted.' However, it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of 'limit' or 'max_price' beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds minimal extra value for these fields.

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 function: proposing available products from the same category and similar price range given a SKU. It uses specific action verbs ('propose') and identifies the resource (SKU) and the output (products). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products or get_product_details, which do not focus on alternatives.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Use this when the requested product is out of stock or over budget.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about the intended scenario.

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