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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully handles transparency. It states the tool is a screen (read-only), mentions ranking by downstream importance, and explains scoping. It does not mention pagination or side effects, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 description is only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes optional scoping and ranking details. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides enough context: it describes the output as ranked pairs and mentions the 'sole supplier's downstream importance'. It could be more explicit about the exact fields returned, but for a focused tool this is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default limit, case-insensitive exact match for country, and linking segment to the get_segments tool, enhancing understanding 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?

The description specifies the exact resource ('(customer, subsegment) pairs') and the action ('Screen for ... where the customer has exactly ONE documented supplier'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling it the 'highest-value documented-concentration risk screen in the dataset'.

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?

The description mentions optional scoping by segment or country, giving clear usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare to alternatives like 'find_chokepoints' or 'find_common_suppliers'.

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