find_alternatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without indicating side effects, authentication needs, or performance implications. The tool likely performs a read-only query, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, achieving conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool has a simple input schema and an output schema (not shown), but the description does not elaborate on what constitutes 'similar specifications' or the format of results. It is adequate for a minimal viable description but lacks detail to fully inform usage.

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%, with both parameters described. The description echoes the schema's description for 'part_number' and 'parameters' without adding new semantics. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 purpose: finding alternative parts with similar specifications. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('alternative parts'), and the criterion 'similar specifications' distinguishes it from generic search tools like 'search_parts'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'search_by_parameters' or 'match_components_to_parts'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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