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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real business context — USD per unit, prices exclude GST and resort-island freight, free delivery in Malé and Hulhumalé, and final prices confirmed on written quotation. It does not disclose result shape or how max_results truncation behaves, which is the remaining gap.

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 purpose and catalog are front-loaded, then pricing terms, then the operational hints. Dense but every clause carries information — no filler. The catalog enumeration is long, though it doubles as retrieval vocabulary, so it earns its space.

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, the description still tells the agent that results carry ids usable in request_quotation, which is the key downstream fact. It omits what fields a result contains (name, price, unit size) and pagination behavior, minor for a three-parameter search tool but not nothing.

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 67%: query and category carry descriptions and category has an enum. The description reinforces the query-empty-lists-category behavior, which links the two parameters, but says nothing about max_results (its default of 15 and cap of 50 exist only in the schema). Adequate but not compensating for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Unan Trading's Maldives wholesale price list') and enumerates the catalog scope (certified Brazilian beef, Halal lamb, fruit, coffee, juices, water, pantry). An agent can distinguish this from get_fullset_beef_quote or list_brazil_export_offers without opening any 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?

Gives two concrete usage rules: leave query empty to list a whole category, and use returned ids in request_quotation. That sections the work before and after this call. It does not say when to prefer this over list_brazil_export_offers or get_fullset_beef_quote, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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