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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that filters are optional, saying nothing about result shape, truncation at the 25-result cap, or whether partial HS codes broaden results — modest added value against an already-rich annotation set.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by example queries that earn their place as intent-matching cues. Slight redundancy with the schema's own "8473.30" example, but nothing is padded.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would want: no indication of what a returned supplier record contains, no note that results are capped at 25, and no guidance on how partial HS codes affect match breadth. Not broken, but not fully sufficient for correct invocation expectations.

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%, with every one of the 7 parameters documented in the schema (format examples, bounds, enum, any-of semantics). The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List") and resource ("suppliers") plus the exact scoping criterion — goods classified under a given HS code — which inherently separates it from find_suppliers_by_country and search_suppliers. An agent can tell what it returns 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?

The description supplies concrete trigger phrasing ("find me a supplier for HS code 8473.30" / "who makes [HS-described product]"), which is strong routing guidance for an agent matching natural-language intent. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer match_suppliers_by_brief or find_suppliers_by_country instead), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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