run_futurepedia_tools_alternatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model (1 point per record) and the returned fields, which is context beyond the schema, but says nothing about error behavior for a bad slug, rate limits, or whether results are cached or paginated.

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 compact statements with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the cost note is a useful trailing detail. Slightly terse but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is a genuine contribution. However, the absence of any usage context versus sibling alternative-finders leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'slug or URL' but adds no format or syntax meaning beyond what the schema's own example ('midjourney') provides.

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?

States a specific verb (returns alternatives) and resource (one Futurepedia AI tool), and even enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from run_futurepedia_tools and run_futurepedia_tools_reviews by the 'alternatives' scope, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tool. The '1 point per returned record' note is a cost signal, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.

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