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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing non-obvious behavior: results are only potential compatibility, target businesses expressed no interest, industry is not matched, and withheld categories are excluded. It does not discuss auth, errors, or rate limits, but it provides substantial interpretive context.

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 three dense, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence contributes non-redundant meaning: what it finds, what it returns, what it does not do, and matching exclusions. No waste.

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 and no output schema, the description explains the meaning of the result and key limitations. It could specify exact return fields, but 'Returns potential_compatibility only' and the exclusions provide enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema already explains businessId with format, example, and source. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find businesses whose published purchasing categories match the categories a business has published as things it can supply.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from a customer list and from industry-based matching, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when assessing supply/purchase category compatibility) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as find_potential_suppliers. The 'not a customer list' caveat helps interpretation but does not provide explicit tool-selection guidance.

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