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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: result cap of 10, the exact fields returned, and the explicit warning that no record data is included. It does not describe matching semantics (exact vs. partial) or empty-result behavior, so it falls just short of full disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then what is returned, then the follow-up routing. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: matching keys, result limit, returned fields, the absence of record data, and the next step. Safety is fully covered by annotations, so nothing material is missing.

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 the query parameter already documents 'Part of a vendor name, a slug or a domain' with min/max length. The description's 'by name, slug or domain' largely restates that, adding only the observation that a slug can be fed to lookup_vendor. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find vendors in the Xither record') plus the three matching keys (name, slug, domain). It also names the sibling lookup_vendor and what it is for, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to find a vendor, then pass the returned slug to lookup_vendor to get the record. The alternative and the condition for using it are named. It stops short of stating when not to call this tool at all (e.g., if a slug is already known), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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