buygit_find_alternative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'risk-scored' and 'license-compatible', but does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor details about output structure (though an output schema exists). Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence encapsulates the core functionality and differentiator; the second gives concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers key differentiators (license, risk scoring) and usage scenarios. Minor gap: no mention of authentication or data source, but for a search tool this is sufficient. Overall complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the query parameter and giving an example for license ('MIT to exclude GPL'), which goes beyond the schema. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 license-compatible, risk-scored alternatives to a library or repo'. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('alternatives'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'buygit_search' by noting that raw GitHub search lacks license/risk signals.

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 usage scenarios: 'when the user says what can replace X?', 'alternatives to Y', or when license issues arise. It contrasts with GitHub search, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool. Still clear enough for an agent.

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