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

The caveat that existence does not establish available stock is genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations do not convey. Beyond that, nothing is disclosed: no ranking or sort behavior, no result size expectations, no statement that all 13 filters are optional and combinable, no indication of what a match is scored on.

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 filler, and the most important caveat is attached immediately. The wording 'candidates' is slightly opaque, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A 13-parameter, zero-description-coverage search tool with no output schema needs far more: what a result looks like, how filters combine, and how this differs from the other search_* siblings. The single sentence leaves the agent guessing on nearly everything except that results are not stock guarantees.

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 0% across 13 parameters, and the description says nothing about any of them. Ambiguous fields such as canonical_concept_id, source_language vs preferred_language, capacity, and delivery_geography receive no interpretation, leaving the description to compensate entirely and failing to do so.

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 verb (Find) and a resource (public manufacturer/supplier profile candidates), so the general purpose is graspable. But 'candidates' is vague and there is no differentiation from the sibling search_manufacturers or get_public_company_profile, which an agent must distinguish this from.

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 never says when to use this rather than search_manufacturers, search_products, or get_public_company_profile. The only guidance is a negative caveat that a hit does not imply stock, which is a clarification about results, not about tool selection.

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