compare_alternatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It discloses the output shape ('ranked verdict table') and implies an evaluation step over multiple candidates, but says nothing about read-only safety, latency/cost of evaluating candidates, or how many sources it queries.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded on what it does before the when-to-use hint and the return note. It could be marginally tighter, but essentially every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return format (ranked verdict table), and the simple 3-parameter surface is fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is behavioral – nothing about whether it is read-only or slow – but for this tool class that is minor.

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 all three parameters (query, top, language) are already documented with defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 combines a specific action (search for alternatives + evaluate each) with a clear resource (a feature/tool), which an agent can grasp immediately. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_oss, but the 'evaluate each one' plus 'ranked verdict table' framing sets it apart from a plain search.

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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use before writing new code to avoid reinventing the wheel.' That tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer search_oss or evaluate_repo), so it isn't a full routing rule.

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