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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important negative behavior: it does not send the request and does not mark eligibility or commission agreement verified. That is genuinely useful, but it omits permissions, idempotency, and what the prepared request contains, so coverage is only 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the non-effect caveats. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and three completely undocumented parameters leave significant gaps: the agent knows what the tool does not do but not what it returns or how to shape inputs. For a tool with this many unknowns, the description should do more.

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?

Three parameters (limit, query, buyer_limit) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no information about any of them. An agent cannot infer what 'query' filters or what the two limits control.

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+resource: 'prepare ... a supplier eligibility evidence request,' and qualifies it as a non-sending draft step. The scope ('capability-verified suppliers with public contact routes') sharpens it, but it does not name any sibling (e.g., verify_supplier_public_evidence) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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 phrase 'Prepare but do not send' and the target population ('capability-verified suppliers with public contact routes') imply when this tool applies, giving a precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to an alternative tool such as verify_supplier_public_evidence.

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