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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds valuable fallback behavior: when no company is listed, it returns a link for posting a free request for quote visible to matching suppliers, which is not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the conditional fallback behavior is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter search tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the core search and the fallback link behavior. An agent can correctly invoke this tool and set proper expectations for both outcomes.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'product' parameter with a description and example. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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 searches the Fromerica directory of U.S. manufacturers and exporters by product, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on markets, state-level exports, tariffs, restricted parties, and FMC licenses.

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 provides clear context: this is the tool to use when an importer wants to search for U.S. exporters by product. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the distinct purpose is evident from the directive directory search.

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