Find similar products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive behavioral point that results come from three different alternative-generation strategies, but says nothing about result count limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 core action and the three modes in a single breath — no filler. The second sentence ('Next: zm_compare') is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it is at least short.

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?

A simple three-parameter read tool with full schema documentation and rich annotations needs little more than a clear statement of what it returns conceptually, which it provides. Nothing essential is missing; only clearer routing against zm_compare/zm_product would improve it.

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% and the enum already defines compared/brand/price, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'the ones people compare it with, others of its brand, or in its price range' largely restates the enum definitions rather than adding new meaning.

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+resource ('Suggest alternatives to a product') and immediately enumerates the three result modes, which map one-to-one onto the 'kind' enum. It does not fully distinguish itself from the sibling zm_compare in a functional way — zm_compare is mentioned only as a follow-up step, not contrasted.

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?

'Next: zm_compare' implies a workflow chain, so the agent knows this is a discovery step followed by comparison. But there is no guidance on when to pick zm_similar over zm_product, zm_rank, or zm_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. needing a slug from zm_search).

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