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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the ranking algorithm (shipment volume under given HS codes first, then product-match quality), which materially affects how an agent should interpret and prioritize results.

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, no filler, and the scope and data source are front-loaded before the ranking rule. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 should anchor expectations for results; it explains the source and ranking but not the shape of returned supplier records or what fields come back. Given only 4 parameters and no required ones, this is largely complete but leaves the return contract unspecified.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the useful interaction between hs_codes and query (ranking order), but says nothing about limit or countries beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search) and resource (manufacturers) plus the distinctive data source — US customs import records — which immediately separates it from sibling search_products. The clause about suppliers with no online catalogue makes the corpus scope concrete.

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 implied rather than directed: the ranking explanation signals that HS codes and query should be supplied to get good results, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against sibling tools like search_products or match_bom. An agent must infer the call context.

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