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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it fuses up to 5 weighted signals, returns a trust score with confidence levels, and clarifies that red flags are suspected inconsistencies requiring human confirmation. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, prerequisite, returns, how it works, Chinese translation). It is comprehensive but could be slightly more concise; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and rich return description, the description is fairly complete. It explains the fusion logic, signals, confidence propagation, and what red flags mean. Minor gaps could include error scenarios or edge cases.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter (supplier_id). The description adds value by stating that supplier_id should come from search_suppliers, get_supplier_detail, or recommend_suppliers, which provides context beyond the schema description.

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's purpose: assessing supplier credibility by fusing multiple signals into a 0-100 trust score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on data credibility and cross-signal plausibility checks, with specific examples in English and Chinese.

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 provides explicit 'USE WHEN' examples and a prerequisite (valid supplier_id from specific tools). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the examples effectively guide appropriate usage. Adding exclusion criteria would elevate to a 5.

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