Sugerir reemplazos convenientes

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses return contents (current product and replacements with savings per unit), natural mode details (ingredients, nutritional seals), and store support. It omits rate limits or authentication, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys all key points: purpose, default behavior, optional mode, stores supported, and output. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points for modes) but is concise and complete.

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 no output schema, the description adequately specifies return values (current product, replacements, savings per unit). Parameters are fully explained. It does not cover error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple suggestion tool, the information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds significant nuance: it explains the purpose of items (product name or search text), store enum values, branchId for local prices, and preferNatural's detailed behavior (more natural with similar price, includes ingredients). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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: to suggest convenient replacements for items within the same catalog. It specifies two modes (price-based and natural-preference) and differentiates from sibling tools like search_products and get_product.

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 provides clear guidance on default usage (best price per unit) and alternative usage with preferNatural: true for natural alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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