szlcsc_find_alternatives

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for communicating behavioral traits. It only mentions the output is not drop-in compatible. It does not disclose whether this tool requires authentication, what data sources it accesses, or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, caching behavior). The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations.

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 very brief (two sentences) and immediately states the core function. However, it could have included parameter details or usage hints without losing conciseness. Still, it avoids fluff and gets to the point quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which could partially explain return values), the description fails to cover preconditions, required permissions, or edge cases. The tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the description does not compensate. The lack of context makes it difficult for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool over its many siblings.

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 0%, so the description should clarify the meaning of each parameter. The description does not explain what 'identifier' expects (e.g., part number, category), how 'max_results' affects sorting, or what 'in_stock_only' truly filters. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent guessing.

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 tool retrieves alternative parts (替代料) from SZLCSC and ranks them. However, it does not explicitly distinguish how this tool differs from sibling tools like 'szlcsc_compare_parts' or 'szlcsc_search', both of which could also involve finding similar parts. The clarification that results are not 'drop-in' compatible is useful but not enough for a 5.

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 gives some guidance by noting the output is not a drop-in compatibility guarantee, which implies the agent should verify before using. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like 'szlcsc_search' for general search or 'szlcsc_compare_parts' for direct comparison. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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