search_alternatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool finds alternatives based on budget, upgrades, or similarity, but does not describe key behaviors like data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no matches are found. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence: 'Find budget alternatives, upgrades, or functionally similar cards.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. The schema covers parameters well, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, resulting in a moderate score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'preserve_function' interacts with 'direction' or detailing price constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Find budget alternatives, upgrades, or functionally similar cards.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('cards'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cards' or 'find_synergistic_cards,' which might have overlapping purposes. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as 'search_cards' for general searches or 'find_synergistic_cards' for combo-related queries. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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