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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety burden. The verb 'Return' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the content (capability card, policies, terms) implies no side effects. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data,' but the retrieval nature is strongly implied.

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 somewhat verbose and redundant, repeating 'US' and 'United States' and listing many items in a single sentence. It could be tightened without losing clarity, but the structure is logically ordered and readable.

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 description provides a comprehensive list of what the returned capability card includes (legal entity, registrations, production model, etc.) and adds context about the vendor's origin and service area. Since there is no output schema, this enumeration effectively covers the expected response content.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about the vendor's history and shipping scope, which indirectly clarifies what data is available, but there are no parameter details to explain.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('vendor capability card'), and enumerates the contents. It also specifies the intended use case ('when a buyer or procurement agent is verifying the supplier'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description provides explicit 'Use when' conditions (verifying supplier, checking national coverage, asking about delivery) that guide when to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_live_quote or search_products, so the differentiation is somewhat implicit.

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