find_alternatives

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns top results with similarity_score, match_reasons, key_differences, but does not disclose pagination, empty result handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits or auth needs.

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 plus output fields list. No wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 5 parameters with no outputs schema, the description is useful but lacks detail on parameter specifics (e.g., limit default, match_on options) and does not mention that facility_id is implied required. Adequate but incomplete.

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. It hints at facility_id (target facility), radius_km (nearby), and match_on (capacity, tier, proximity), but does not clarify the format of match_on or the purpose of exclude_operator and limit. Partial compensation.

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 'find similar nearby alternatives' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_facilities and compare_sites by specifying weighted match on capacity, tier, proximity.

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 states 'Use when a user is interested in a specific facility and wants to compare.' Provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use.

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