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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral on top of that — no mention of pagination via limit/offset, of the profile-driven defaults for priority and certifications, or of result ranking. It is essentially a restatement of the name.

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 short sentences with the verb-resource front-loaded and no padding. The 'handles search, browsing, and recommendations' clause is somewhat generic filler, but overall the definition is efficiently sized.

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?

This is a 13-parameter discovery tool with two distinct modes (free-text query vs category+filters), 0 required params, and no output schema or annotation coverage of the mode split. The description never mentions the required product_category_name for filtered searches or the profile-default behavior of priority/certifications, leaving the agent reliant entirely on schema text.

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% across all 13 params, including the detailed query-vs-product_category_name rule, the priority enum, and profile-override semantics for certifications. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('Find products') and broadens scope to search, browsing, and recommendations, which separates it from read-only siblings like suppco_get_product_info or suppco_find_brands. It stops short of naming any sibling as the alternative, so the boundary with find_buying_club_products/find_brands is left implicit.

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?

'Use this whenever the user wants to discover or find products' gives an always-on trigger but no when-not condition and no alternatives. Critically, the schema's own rule that query must not be combined with filters (and that product_category_name is required for filtered searches) is never surfaced in the description, so the agent gets no routing guidance for the tool's two distinct modes.

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