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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description says nothing about cost, external inference processing, or consequences of a run — even though the required consentExternalProcessing flag signals sensitive data leaves the boundary. The gentle verb 'Find' also understates a destructive, open-world agent invocation, leaving the agent to discover the risk profile from annotations alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding — the scope keywords come first. It is concise rather than under-specified, but its length is not matched to a tool this complex.

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 six-parameter, nested-input, destructive, open-world agent with a payment path and no output schema, one sentence is far from complete. Nothing explains what a successful run returns (summary, deliverable, financialModel per sourceFields), how prior runs are stitched via sourceRunIds, or when consent must be obtained.

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 is 67% and the description contributes no parameter meaning whatsoever — nothing about inputs.context, categoryEvidence, sourceRunIds, sourceFields, paymentInvoiceId, or idempotencyKey. The 75,000-character combined limit and service-specific CSV/date/rubric validation mentioned only in the schema are never surfaced in the description, so callers relying on the description would miss key input constraints.

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 ('Find usable sourcing options') plus the category scope ('facilities, professional services, consumables, and indirect materials'), which meaningfully separates it from category siblings like it-hardware, telecom, and mro. It does not, however, say what an 'option' is or how it differs from adjacent tools such as xmatch-supplier-shortlist.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or named alternatives, despite ~30 sibling tools in this namespace. An agent can only infer that this applies to indirect categories; nothing tells it when to pick this over mro, contracts, or procurement_workflow__* paths.

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