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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds what annotations cannot convey: that the output is structural signals, never an accusation or credit judgment, which tells the agent how to frame the results. It also adds the auth requirement (partner or enterprise key). It does not cover rate limits or result volume, which is why it scores 4, not 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?

The description is three tight sentences: the scan scope comes first, then the interpretation guardrail, then the access requirement. Nothing is repeated and there is no filler.

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 and minimal annotations, the description adequately tells what is scanned, how to interpret the output, and what access is needed. The only gap is the undocumented lang parameter, which an agent cannot use confidently from either the schema or the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It implies a single supplier identifies the record but never names the slug parameter or its constraints, and the lang parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource, then lists the exact signal categories (missing data, certification freshness, trade-fair recency, completeness, enrichment staleness), so the tool's purpose is unmistakable. It never names get_supplier or verify_supplier_listing as the alternatives it should be compared with, leaving that sibling boundary to inference.

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 is implied by 'for one supplier' and by naming the prerequisite (a partner or enterprise key), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool rather than get_supplier or verify_supplier_listing, and no exclusion for when not to use it.

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