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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses result ordering ('newest-first'), a non-obvious filtering rule ('Works without English/published projection are excluded'), and the returned fields. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any auth or performance characteristics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage examples, then return shape and exclusions — every sentence carries information. The phrase 'English/published projection' is jargon that an agent may not resolve from the description alone, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies return fields, ordering, supplier context, and an exclusion rule — enough for correct invocation. It lacks explicit default/pagination guidance and cross-references to siblings for multi-tool workflows.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only echoes the filter concepts (material, process, industry, tolerance) without adding syntax or precedence rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Core discovery tool' for works) and gives concrete example queries, so an agent knows it retrieves work/portfolio examples rather than suppliers. It does not fully separate itself from search_suppliers, since 'wants factories with experience in an industry' could plausibly be served by either tool.

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?

Provides concrete trigger examples ('who has made a 6061-T6 medical endoscope housing') that make the intended use case easy to recognize. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance against the sibling search_suppliers or get_work.

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