market_find_alternatives

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds value beyond annotations with the 'Experimental' flag and the strict marketName-prefix matching requirement. It does not detail failure behavior when the prefix mismatches or any reliability caveats implied by 'Experimental.'

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded in the first. The 'Experimental' fragment is terse but earned, and the final sentence packs critical usage constraints. Nothing is redundant, though 'Experimental' could arguably carry a bit more context.

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 9-parameter tool with six required fields and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious id/keywords semantics and the scope constraint. Missing: what happens on marketName/depot prefix mismatch, and no guidance on pagination controls or the reliability implications of 'Experimental.' Moderate complexity meets moderate completeness.

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 67%, leaving id, keywords, and marketName undocumented in the schema. The description directly compensates by mapping id to 'original id', keywords to 'product title', and tying marketName semantically to the depot ID prefix. This is real added meaning for exactly the parameters that most need it.

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 action and resource: 'Find substitutes at one market chain.' The 'at one market chain' scope is a genuine constraint that helps an agent understand the tool's domain. However, it never names the closest sibling (market_find_similar_products) or explains how substitutes differ from similar products, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 invocation constraints—'marketName must match each supplied depot ID prefix; provide original id and product title as keywords'—which help construct a valid call. But it gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternatives from the 14 sibling tools, so an agent cannot decide when to choose this over market_find_similar_products or market_search_products.

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