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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually transparent: it discloses that a plain MCP connection cannot purchase data, that payment is required, that there is no safety guarantee, that recovery requires a saved token, and that the agent should never automatically repay after a timeout. This goes well beyond a typical tool description.

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 dense and every sentence contributes useful information, including pricing, prerequisites, matching rules, sample URL, and recovery flow. However, it opens with price rather than the tool's purpose, and the paragraph is long enough that an agent must parse multiple caveats before seeing the primary behavior.

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 this is a paid, externally dependent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers cost, payment transport, prerequisites, identity matching, result scope, sample setup, recovery instructions, and safety guidance. An agent has enough context to decide whether and how to invoke the 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 coverage is effectively 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by specifying 'exact Chinese legal name or USCC' and warning against guessed English-name matches, which adds real selection guidance beyond the schema's field-level descriptions. It could also map the identity fields more explicitly, but the core semantic guidance is present.

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 identifies the resource (basic China supplier evidence) and the data domains returned (company registration, operating abnormalities, administrative penalties), plus page/record limits. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'search', so the operation is mostly inferred from the tool name and fragments, but it is still distinguishable from the 'full' variant.

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 gives concrete usage prerequisites: an x402 v2 payment client, funded Base USDC wallet, spending authorization, and an exact Chinese legal name or USCC instead of an English guess. It does not explicitly contrast with get_china_supplier_evidence_full or resolve_china_company, but it provides clear context on how to call this tool successfully.

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