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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this usefully with 'Returns the draft text only; nothing is sent'. It further adds a real behavioral trait (bilingual EN+zh output for Chinese-region suppliers) and an auth constraint (partner/enterprise key) that annotations do not convey. Only gaps are failure modes and any length/rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then output/safety, then constraints. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back ('draft text only'), that nothing is sent, localization behavior, and the key tier required. What is missing is resolution of the 'slug' parameter and behavior on invalid/unknown suppliers.

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 50%: 'brief' is documented in the schema and 'quantity' explains itself, but 'slug' and 'buyerCompany' are undocumented in both places. The description only indirectly ties 'slug' to the supplier ('grounded in the supplier's facts'), leaving it unclear whether slug is a supplier identifier or a listing handle.

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 artifact: 'Generate a professional RFQ ... email body' grounded in supplier facts and the buyer's brief. That is clearly distinct from the supplier-search/compare siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

It offers context ('Requires a partner or enterprise key', bilingual output for Chinese-region suppliers) but never says when to choose this over e.g. match_suppliers_by_brief or request_introduction, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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