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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Search' matches that safety profile. Beyond that, the description adds almost no behavioral context: no mention of return format, filtering semantics, pagination, limits, or what 'normalized' means operationally. The single phrase 'normalized supply graph' offers only vague scope.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. This is appropriately brief from a style standpoint, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with four undocumented parameters, no required fields, no enums, no output schema, and a large set of sibling search tools, this description is far too incomplete to support correct selection and invocation. The agent has no information about what each parameter does, what results look like, or how this search differs from alternatives.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and four parameters (mode, limit, capability, max_price_cents) completely undocumented, the description must compensate for the schema gap. It does not: none of the parameter names or purposes are explained, and no hints are given about valid values, defaults, or how they shape the search.

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 verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('normalized supply graph'), so it is not a tautology and conveys the core operation. However, 'normalized' is unexplained, and the phrase is terse enough that an agent may not understand what the supply graph represents. It still distinguishes itself from generic search tools by naming a particular data resource.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools such as search_capability_suppliers, search_global_market, search_ranked_market, or search_listings. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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