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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the 'Read-only' repetition adds little; however 'needs no e-mail' adds auth context and 'States no prices or lead times' proactively bounds the output, which annotations cannot express. No pagination or latency context, but for a planning tool that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output shape, then limitations and the sibling comparison. The middle enumeration is dense but each clause carries distinct information; no filler sentences.

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 usefully sketches the return structure (make vs buy split, integration steps, gaps, assumptions) and caps expectations (no prices/lead times). Complete enough to invoke confidently; only minor imprecision in what 'gaps and assumptions' concretely means.

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% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the 'product description' input and adds nothing about quantity, budget_note, or ship_to_country semantics beyond the 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 ('Turn a product description into a sourcing plan') plus the exact resource, and enumerates the output components (make/buy splits, integration steps, gaps, assumptions). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by contrasting 'a product rather than a single part' with create_rfq.

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?

Explicitly names the sequencing rule ('use it before create_rfq') and the condition that selects it ('when the user has a product rather than a single part'). Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated, not inferred.

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