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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one meaningful behavioral fact — that only currently alive vendors are returned, implying dead vendors are excluded — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume, which matters for a list-everything tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. Some of the enumerated field names ('trust chips', 'DOSE SCORE') are jargon-y, but they are brief and informative rather than wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing is the routing context: when this beats best_vendors_for and whether the result set is bounded — the main things an agent needs beyond the schema for a zero-param list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description responsibly refrains from inventing filter semantics that don't exist.

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 states the resource and scope precisely — every tracked vendor that is currently alive — which lets an agent infer a full enumeration. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling best_vendors_for, which is also a vendor-listing tool, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative, best_vendors_for. The agent is left to infer that this is the unfiltered dump and the sibling is the ranked/filtered view.

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