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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already frame this as a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that output is immediate and conditional on supplier availability, but does not disclose whether a demand record persists or whether any downstream obligation is created.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the expected immediate result economically, which is exactly what a concise tool description should do.

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?

Four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions make this under-specified. An agent cannot determine the expected shape of the returned supplier matches, how to express currency or budget, or how this tool should be selected over publish_demand and search_capability_suppliers.

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%, so the description needed to clarify parameter semantics. It only gives meaning to 'capability' via 'missing capability'; 'goal', 'currency', and 'budget_cents' are left to inference, with no format, units, or optionality guidance.

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 names a specific action ('Publish demand'), a target resource ('missing capability'), and a concrete outcome ('return matching suppliers if available'). This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings such as publish_demand or find_capability.

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?

It implies the appropriate scenario: when a capability is missing and the agent wants to expose demand and see available suppliers. It provides no explicit 'instead of X' guidance or exclusions, so an agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools.

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