find_alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the empty-list outcome when no alternatives are documented and explicitly stating it will not fabricate substitutes, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as an error.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the edge-case behavior. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the name alone.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential contract, including the empty-result case. The main remaining gap is that it does not characterize the shape of a non-empty result (e.g. names or links), though with no output schema this is a minor omission.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that 'slug' is the exact tool slug from search_tools with a concrete example. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('editorially linked published alternatives to a tool'), which is more specific than a generic 'find similar tools'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling compare_tools, but the qualifier 'editorially linked published' narrows the scope enough that an agent can distinguish it from a generic search or comparison.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call this when you need documented alternatives for a known tool. The line 'does not guess substitutes' gives useful negative guidance, but the description never names an alternative tool (compare_tools, get_tool) or states the condition that would route an agent to one of them instead.

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