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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results come from *published* catalogues, each hit carries supplier, summary, links, and price only 'when published' — flagging that price is sometimes absent. It says nothing about rate limits or result-count ceilings.

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, zero filler, with the core operation and query semantics front-loaded and immediately followed by useful illustrative examples and the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return fields (supplier, summary, price-when-published, links), which is exactly what an agent needs. The only mild gap is the absence of any statement about result limits or how the 'limit' parameter bounds the search.

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 67%: 'query' and 'countries' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' has only default/min/max constraints. The description restates the query-by-description idea and confirms country filtering via 'suppliers', but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (Search) and resource (manufacturers' published product catalogues) with concrete examples ('stainless steel hex bolt', 'PVC ball valve'). It also lists the returned fields, making it distinguishable from the singular get_product and the supplier-oriented search_suppliers / get_supplier siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: searching 'by description' suggests broad discovery versus the pinpoint retrieval a get_product call provides, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition or exclusion is given. An agent can infer the intent but is not explicitly routed.

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