find_alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the output structure (ranked alternatives with similarity_score, match_reasons, key_differences). No contradictions.

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 covering purpose, example, parameters, and usage guidelines. It is clear but slightly verbose; could be more concise.

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?

Despite explaining return format, the description fails to cover all parameters accurately due to mismatch with schema. No output schema exists, so description should fully detail parameters and behavior but falls short.

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 0%, so description must compensate, but it lists parameters ('facility_id or name', 'capacity_mw') not in the schema, and omits 'match_on' and 'exclude_operator'. It also incorrectly states facility_id or name is required while context shows 0 required parameters.

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 similar alternatives to a single facility. It provides an example and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like score_facility and compare_sites.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including naming sibling tools for alternative use cases (score_facility, analyze_site, compare_sites).

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