buygit_find_alternative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'license-compatible, risk-scored alternatives' and mentions available filters, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, data freshness, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations, more explicit 'read-only' or 'no side effects' statements would improve transparency.

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 concise: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, distinguishing value, and usage triggers. No redundant words, and the most important information (the tool's unique value) appears first.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely explains return structure), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, comparison to alternatives, and filter parameters. All critical aspects for agent decision-making are covered without needing to add output format details.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning the 'language' and 'license' filters and giving an example ('e.g. MIT to exclude GPL'), which provides context beyond the schema's generic descriptions. The 'query' parameter is also implied as the library/repo to find alternatives for.

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 action: 'Find license-compatible, risk-scored alternatives to a library or repo.' It differentiates from sibling tools like buygit_search by highlighting that GitHub search lacks license/risk signals, and the tool is distinct from other siblings like buygit_compare (comparison) or buygit_explain (explanation). The verb 'find' and resource 'alternatives' are specific and unambiguous.

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 triggers: 'when the user says "what can replace X?", "alternatives to Y", or "the GPL version of Z is blocking me, find an MIT one".' It explains that this tool fills a gap that GitHub search cannot. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or what alternatives exist (e.g., for general search use buygit_search), but the context is clear enough.

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