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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does contribute one meaningful trait: 'Never contacts them automatically' clarifies it is a passive discovery action. However, it does not disclose return behavior, network/data-source behavior, or any limitations, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the domain and the second adds a critical boundary. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what a successful discovery returns, but it does not. It also omits parameter semantics and any success/error behavior, leaving an agent to guess at the result shape for a 2-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain 'query' or 'limit' or the loose additionalProperties. The property names are self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 a clear action and object: 'Discover commercial public A2A/MCP services and B2B SaaS commission programs.' This distinguishes the tool's domain from the broad sibling list, though it does not explicitly compare with find_counterparty.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as find_counterparty or the various commercial_intelligence offers. The second sentence only states a boundary ('Never contacts them automatically'), not a usage context or alternative.

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