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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the result is only a potential compatibility signal, no relationship is asserted, neither party may be aware of the other, and withheld categories are excluded. This is rich beyond what any schema or annotation would provide, addressing the tool's limitations and semantic meaning.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states the action, second clarifies output semantics, third lists exclusions. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, result semantics, and exclusions well. It explains what the output means ('potential_compatibility only') but does not explicitly describe the return structure (e.g., list of businesses with scores). This minor ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 single parameter businessId is fully documented in the schema with type, format ('business:<canonical-id>'), and source ('from resolve_entities'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description needs no additional parameter info. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find businesses whose published supply categories match the categories a business has published as things it buys.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'find_potential_customers' by focusing on supply-side matching, and further clarifies what it does not do ('Nothing is matched on industry').

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 clearly implies the use case: when a user wants to identify potential suppliers for a given business based on category compatibility. It does not explicitly contrast with find_potential_customers or state exclusions, but the behavior is self-explanatory and context is clear. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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