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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly discloses that export_ready is a non-filtering forward-compatibility placeholder, which is valuable. But it does not describe the return shape, result limits/ordering, or other behavioral characteristics an agent might need.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by flagging an important non-obvious parameter 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?

The schema is rich and covers all parameters, which makes the tool callable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not describe the expected return value or provide any routing guidance between search and the sibling get/details tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it groups category and state as primary search criteria and repeats the export_ready caveat already present in the schema. No significant new parameter meaning is introduced.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('Australian manufacturers'), and the main filtering dimensions ('ANZSIC category and state'). It clearly differentiates this search tool from sibling tools like get_manufacturer_profile or list_categories, which have narrower purposes.

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 intended use is implied clearly by the description, and the schema adds the important tip to call list_categories first for valid category values. However, the description itself does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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