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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. On top of that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are limited to verified manufacturers, include specific fields, are localized, and are sorted newest first. No contradictory behavioral claims.

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 filler: the first front-loads the action, return shape, localization, and ordering; the second gives routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list operation with two optional, fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it states scope, returned fields, ordering, and the appropriate alternative. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the returned fields in prose.

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 fully documents limit and locale. The description only restates language localization and adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List verified manufacturers published on Gemalli.' It also names the returned fields and ordering, and its scope ('verified', platform-level) distinguishes it from search_products and get_manufacturer.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to show what the platform carries' and directs filtering/search use cases to 'search_products'. This clearly differentiates the tool from its closest sibling.

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