Find Alternative Suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that results exclude the original supplier, returns error if supplier_id not found, returns empty alternatives if none exist, and has a constraint of max 10 alternatives per call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, USE WHEN, prerequisite, workflow, differences, returns, errors, constraint). Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and usage scenarios, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (finding alternatives based on similarity), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, workflow, differentiation from siblings, prerequisites, return format (reference_supplier, alternatives, attribution), error handling, and constraints. With annotations providing safety hints and schema covering parameters fully, no output schema is needed as the description explains returns adequately.

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 (supplier_id, reason, province, limit) thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning 'optionally in a different province or with different attributes' (hinting at province parameter usage) and 'Max 10 alternatives per call' (relating to limit), but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find alternative suppliers similar to a given supplier.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it starts from a known supplier_id (vs. recommend_suppliers which starts from product requirements, and search_suppliers which filters by criteria). The verb 'find' and resource 'alternative suppliers' are clear and specific.

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 under 'USE WHEN:' (e.g., user says supplier is too expensive/slow/far, needs backup options), a prerequisite (must have valid supplier_id from specific tools), workflow integration (search_suppliers → identify candidate → find_alternatives → compare_suppliers), and clear differentiation from recommend_suppliers and search_suppliers. This covers when to use, prerequisites, and alternatives comprehensively.

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