search_alternativeto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only search behavior without contradictions, and the examples clarify the nature of the tool. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a search tool, this is adequate.

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 sentences, no redundant words. First sentence states core function, second gives usage scenarios. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool is simple. The description covers essential aspects: what it does and when to use it. Could mention output details, but given the straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 descriptive examples for 'query' and clear descriptions for 'limit' and 'use_cache'. The description does not add significant value beyond the schema; it mainly provides usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find alternatives to specific software' and provides specific query patterns ('what can I use instead of X'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like get_github_trending_repos or search_paperswithcode.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool by listing example user requests ('what can I use instead of X'). No when-not-to guidance is given, but the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

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