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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by listing the returned fields (names, countries, ids, endpoints), which matters because no output schema exists, but it stays silent on result limits/pagination and on what happens when no match is found.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then return contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, search keys and returned fields, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and the lack of any routing hint against the near-identical sibling assay_supplier.

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%: q and country are documented, limit is not documented anywhere. The description adds a small increment over the schema by noting q can take a line of business, not just a name, but it says nothing about limit or its 1-200 range.

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 and resource (search the register for a supplier/firm) plus the two search keys, name or line of business. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling assay_supplier, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two is the lookup-by-id versus the free-text search.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as assay_supplier or assay_countries. The search keys are named but no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing logic are given.

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