Get Product Alternatives & Substitutes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — results are cached up to 24 hours — which tells the agent data may be stale. It says nothing about how many alternatives come back, whether they are ranked, or what happens when no substitute exists.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the caching caveat second. No wasted words and nothing buried.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it never indicates what an alternative looks like (product IDs, names, prices) or what an empty result means. For a lookup tool with no return-value documentation anywhere, that is a real gap.

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% and the single parameter even carries a format example ('wi196825' or '196825'), so the description adds nothing on parameters. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('alternatives, store-brand swaps, dietary substitutes for a product') gives an unambiguous purpose that is naturally distinct from ah_get_product. It stops short of naming the sibling it displaces, so an agent must infer that this is the 'what else could I buy' tool rather than the 'details for this item' tool.

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 enumerated substitute types imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit routing guidance such as 'use ah_get_product for full details on a single item' or any stated precondition. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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