Muadil / benzer ürünler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about empty result sets, how many relation types are queried by default server-side, or whether lookups cost quota. With annotations carrying most of the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the type glossary, then the trigger conditions — no filler. The type enumeration is dense but each gloss is load-bearing.

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?

Five parameters, no output schema, and the description never indicates what a result looks like — whether each alternative comes with price (and in which currency), stock status, or match confidence. For a tool whose whole value is comparing options, that missing return-shape hint leaves a real gap, though the rich input schema and annotations prevent it from being severe.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the bare enum values by defining what 'substitute' (drop-in/muadil), 'similar' (benzer), 'accessory' (complementary) and 'parametric' (same category, same key specs) actually mean. That disambiguates the most consequential parameter better than the schema does.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find replacement options for a product') and enumerates the four relation modes it can return, each glossed in parentheses. It is clearly distinct in intent from search/filter siblings, but it never names those siblings or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

'Useful when a part is out of stock, end-of-life or too expensive' gives concrete trigger conditions for reaching for this tool. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to use search_products or compare_products instead).

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