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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: benchmark data is live on paid plans and 12-week delayed otherwise, and listings deliberately omit contact details. The tiering caveat materially affects how an agent should interpret the returned benchmark values.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the resource and filterability lead, and the data-freshness caveat and contact caveat follow. Efficiently front-loaded, though the parenthetical tiering clause takes some unpacking.

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 does the work of telling the agent what a listing contains (supplier offer plus a PackIndex benchmark) and what it does not (contact details). Pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap for a search tool.

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 75%, near the high-coverage baseline, so the schema already documents query, region, and material_id. The description reinforces the PackIndex material-code and origin filters but says nothing about the query keyword field or the limit cap/default, adding little beyond the schema.

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 resource (live supplier offers on the OPN Trade Exchange) with a clear action (search) and names the filter dimensions. It implicitly separates itself from contact-oriented siblings by noting 'No contact details — RFQs happen on the Exchange,' but never names the nearest alternative (find_suppliers) explicitly.

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 context is implied: this is where you browse live supplier offers, and the closing clause points the agent toward the Exchange RFQ flow for contact. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative statement against find_suppliers, get_prices, or post_rfq.

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