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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context (API key requirement, 'one unit per line'), though the 25-line cap merely repeats the schema's maxItems.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose leads. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('whose customs record fits') but nothing is padded.

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 tool with a nested array input, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and nested per-line fields (ref, hs_code, quantity, etc.), the description is too thin: it does not explain the expected shape of the response per line or the role of per_line/countries.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only addresses 'lines' marginally ('up to 25 lines', 'one unit per line') and says nothing about 'per_line' (default 3, max 5) or 'countries', leaving two of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 names the resource (suppliers/catalogue products/factories) and the action (matching) against a bill of materials, and specifies scope (up to 25 lines). It is somewhat fragmentary, but an agent can distinguish it from single-entity siblings like get_product or search_suppliers.

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?

It implies batch BOM matching is the use case but never states when to pick this over search_products or search_suppliers, nor any prerequisites beyond the API key. No when/when-not guidance is given.

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