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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world safety, so the description earns credit for disclosing the internals that matter: semantic search over specific supplier fields combined with hard structured filters, plus a ranked result set with per-result matchExplanation. It doesn't clarify how conflicts between freeform brief and structured filters resolve (hard exclude vs. boost) or note behavior when no matches exist.

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 plus a compact example, front-loaded with the selection condition before mechanism, output, and illustration. Every sentence carries distinct information: when to use, how it works, what comes back, and a concrete input.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what goes in, how ranking happens, and that supplier cards carry a matchExplanation. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (empty result sets, precedence between brief-derived and explicit filters), which is minor but non-zero.

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 93%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by enumerating the filter families and, more importantly, by showing a realistic `brief` value that mixes certifications, country, staff band, and export markets into freeform text. That example teaches an agent what belongs in `brief` versus the dedicated parameters, which the schema alone does not convey.

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+resource (match suppliers to a buyer brief) and immediately scopes it to freeform natural-language requests, which separates it from the structured-lookup siblings like find_suppliers_by_country and find_suppliers_by_hs_code. The mention of the ranking output and matchExplanation makes the outcome concrete.

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?

"Best tool when a buyer describes what they need in their own words" gives a clear selection condition, and the contrast with structured filters implies when the pure-filter siblings are better. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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