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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (catalogue-product and open-recommendation counts) and that ranking is optional, but does not describe result limits or ordering defaults 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the matching behavior and followed by the return/ranking information. No filler or redundancy.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions and annotations, the description only needs to convey the matching model and output shape, which it does. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on alternatives for supplier lookups.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the ranking concept ('optional ranking by either count') without adding format, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (matches) and resource (suppliers) plus the matching modes (name, fragment, acronym) and the returned payload. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_supplier_constraints or compare_supplier_offer_history, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('matches a supplier name, fragment or acronym') and the schema note that omitting query lists everything, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or pointer to an alternative sibling for supplier lookup.

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