marketplace_similar_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the algorithmic approach (content similarity and collaborative filtering) but does not state whether it is read-only, what output format to expect, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences and 22 words, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and a concise note on the underlying method in the second. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it optimally concise.

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 lookup tool, the description is adequate, but it does not explain what the return data looks like (e.g., a list of tool objects, similarity scores, ordering) despite having no output schema. It would benefit from a sentence describing the result format or any edge cases, making it incomplete for a recommendation tool.

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% (both toolId and limit are described in the input schema), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of the algorithm is about overall behavior, not parameter usage. The schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 (Find), the resource (tools), and the specific scope (similar to a specific tool by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like marketplace_discover_tools or marketplace_recommendations by focusing on similarity to a given tool, and the mention of content similarity and collaborative filtering adds further differentiation.

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 implies usage when you have a specific tool ID and want similar tools, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like marketplace_tool_alternatives or marketplace_recommendations, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is clear but not fully developed.

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