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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Returns...' implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a simple read tool this is borderline adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Single sentence conveying exactly what is returned. No fluff, front-loaded with key terms.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must cover return value. It enumerates three types of information (supply categories, service area, quote endpoints), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the scope. However, details on data format or structure are missing, which a schema would provide.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 with no param info needed. The description adds no param details because none exist.

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 returns Cintra's supported supply categories, service area, and official quote endpoints. The verb 'returns' and resource 'supplier capabilities' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_quote_request, which deal with quote creation rather than capability lookup.

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 usage for discovering available capabilities before preparing a quote, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. Given the sibling context, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide, but explicit guidance would improve score.

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