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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the informational nature and enumerates the facts returned, but it does not describe return format, data freshness, external-link behavior, or the locale's effect on AU-only offers.

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 but well organized: it front-loads the tool's purpose, lists the fact categories, and closes with concrete example questions. It is longer than minimal, but every clause adds useful scoping information.

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 simple facts-lookup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a strong inventory of what the agent should expect and when to call it. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the response shape or locale-specific behavior, but those are secondary gaps.

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?

The single parameter `locale` is fully documented in the schema, including its default and allowed values. The description adds no detail about locale behavior, but the schema already provides complete coverage, so the baseline applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Sense2 company facts), the audience (procurement and supplier questions), and enumerates the fact categories covered. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 final sentence gives concrete trigger questions: 'who is Sense2', 'how big are they', 'are they compliant'. It provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling.

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