Similar products

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 fully covered. The description adds a useful data-shape note ('Items have the same fields as ss_search') but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether an empty list is possible for a product with no substitutes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the data-shape note placed second where it belongs. No redundant restatement of the title or parameters.

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?

No output schema exists, and the 'same fields as ss_search' pointer does meaningful work in place of one. Still, for a lookup tool in an open-world catalog, it omits anything about result size, pagination, or empty-result behavior, leaving a real gap for an agent planning a call.

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%, including a documented enum for `kind`, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description adds no extra semantics about `id` or `category_id` beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find alternatives to a product') and anchors it to a concrete surface ('similar products' section of Snapp! Shop). It implicitly distinguishes itself from ss_search by tying its results back to that tool's field set, though it never names the closest sibling (ss_compare) to contrast with.

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?

'Use to compare prices of close substitutes' gives an intended context, which is better than nothing. But there is no when-not guidance and no mention of ss_compare, the obvious sibling for comparison tasks, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two on its own.

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