find_alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful output details (similarity_score, match_reasons, key_differences) but does not mention side effects or state changes, which is fine given annotations. 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 well-structured with use case, example, parameters, output, and exclusions. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Loses a point for mentioning a parameter not in the schema.

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 discovery tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains output shape and constraints well. It covers alternative tools and typical use. Lacks pagination or error handling details, but that is acceptable.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context for facility_id and limit but omits match_on and exclude_operator. Mentions capacity_mw which is not in schema, causing potential confusion. Baseline 3 applies.

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 finds similar nearby alternatives to a given facility, with a concrete example. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like score_facility, analyze_site, 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 provides explicit when-to-use ('user likes one facility and wants alternatives'), a usage example, and clear when-not-to-use instructions with alternative tool names.

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