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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It usefully discloses the payment requirement ($0.002 USDC on Base via x402) and summarizes what evidence is returned. However, it is silent on whether this is strictly read-only, what authentication or prerequisites are needed, and how failures or ambiguous matches are handled.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the critical cost information and then lists the evidence scope. It contains no filler, though terms like 'provenance scope' and 'ambiguity-safe linkage' are jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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, no annotations, and only vague usage context, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently. It lacks a concrete return contract, explicit distinction from the 'full' sibling, and guidance on how to structure the query or resolve ambiguous supplier identities.

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 compensate: it never mentions the 'query' parameter, uscc, or company, despite claiming 'company identity' in the output. An agent must rely entirely on the nested schema properties to understand that it needs either an 18-character USCC or a Chinese company name.

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 clearly identifies the tool as low-cost Chinese supplier screening and lists concrete evidence categories (company identity, procurement track record, regulatory-history summary, provenance scope, ambiguity-safe linkage). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_china_supplier_evidence_full beyond the 'basic' name and the 'low-cost' qualifier, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'low-cost' suggests this is the cheaper, likely lighter-weight option compared to get_china_supplier_evidence_full, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of resolve_china_company. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and cost alone.

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