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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds that results come back as ranked supplier cards — useful since there is no output schema. No disclosure of ranking basis, auth, or paging beyond the limit parameter.

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 capability, then return shape, then usage trigger. 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?

For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is close to sufficient; the only gap is what 'ranked' means and when to escalate to get_supplier for full detail.

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 100% and documents query, limit, and lang thoroughly; the description's main addition is confirming bilingual (English/Chinese) name support and alias matching. It says nothing about lang or limit behavior, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-documented 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 verb and resource plus the search keys (company name in English or Chinese, brand, alias), which cleanly separates it from siblings like find_suppliers_by_hs_code and find_suppliers_by_country that search on other axes.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: a buyer naming a supplier or asking 'who is X?'. It does not name the follow-on alternatives (e.g., get_supplier for detail, find_suppliers_by_country when only a country is known), so routing is clear but exclusions are absent.

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