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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a full profile and mentions per-locale identifiers, which is useful. It doesn't disclose behavior like whether locale is optional or how missing locales are handled, but the schema covers the locale parameter.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage context. No wasted words.

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 read-only single-resource fetch with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens if the slug doesn't exist or how locale affects the response, but those are minor gaps given the annotations and schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that the profile is per-manufacturer and that identifiers are for the same profile in other languages, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one manufacturer's full profile'), and enumerates the profile contents (company description, country, certifications, identifiers in other languages). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_manufacturers and search_products as prior steps.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: after list_manufacturers or search_products, when the person wants to know who the supplier is. This gives clear context and implies the alternative tools are for discovery, not profile detail.

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