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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing data provenance ('vendor information from docks only, not an independent market comparison') and a side-effect guarantee ('no lead is created'). This is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation block.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most important caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The provenance and no-lead notes round it out, but the total silence on what the 'query' argument should contain leaves a real gap for invocation.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single required 'query' parameter — no hint about expected content, phrasing, or length (2-500 chars). With one undocumented param, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (find) and resource (offers of docks), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_product_information or submit_inquiry, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'No lead is created' implicitly contrasts with prepare_inquiry/submit_inquiry, hinting that this is a non-committal search step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any routing to a named alternative.

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