get_tool_alternatives

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup via 'Find' and clarifies the type-compatibility and category constraints, but it doesn't explicitly state that no mutation occurs, how results are ordered, or what happens when no alternatives exist.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The Args block is clear and directly maps to the parameters without unnecessary expansion.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter lookup tool, and the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return-value details don't need to be in the description; minor gaps like error behavior or no-result handling are acceptable but prevent a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section explains that slug is the tool's slug identifier and that limit is the maximum number of alternatives with a default of 5. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('type-compatible alternative tools from the same category'), and clarifies the scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tools or get_tool, which serve different purposes.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Useful when a tool's circuit breaker is open or you want to compare options.' It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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