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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results carry a price-vs-PackIndex benchmark comparison, and the auth requirement differs by parameter (project_id needs the user's OPN account, material code does not). Return format and result caps are not described.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the core capability before the usage trigger and the auth nuance. Dense but no filler; the benchmark and country-filtering clauses both earn their 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 zero-required-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains what is searched, what comes back, and the auth split. It does not cover result limits or pagination, a minor gap for a listing 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying project_id to an OPN-account requirement and noting that a material code works for anyone, which is access semantics not present in the parameter descriptions.

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: finding suppliers who can quote a material or Design Studio project. It further specifies the two result classes (live Trade Exchange listings with PackIndex price comparison, plus matched converters from the verified network), which separates it from search_exchange_listings and the index/price 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?

"Use before post_rfq" gives an explicit trigger context, and the OPN-account note clarifies the precondition for project-based lookup. It does not explicitly name an alternative to use instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

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