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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the ranking is 'precomputed' and scoped to the 'current work-unit snapshot', telling the agent results may be stale relative to live data.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the positive scope and the key limitation front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Minor gap: the description says 'category or supplier' while the parameter is generically named 'entity_name', leaving slight ambiguity about what entity types are accepted.

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 the schema already documents metric, category and entity_name with defaults and formats. The description only echoes the metric choices ('revenue or units') and the category/supplier scoping, adding little beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (ranks) and resource (products) plus the exact scope: a named category or supplier within the current work-unit snapshot. The negative constraint 'It does not rank the whole catalogue' crisply bounds the tool, so an agent can distinguish it from catalogue-wide siblings like search_catalogue.

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 scope statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. vs twelfth_list_products or search_catalogue). The 'does not rank the whole catalogue' clause hints at when-not, but doesn't route the agent to the correct sibling.

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