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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld) by disclosing that a customer key is required, that discovery consumes no calculation quota, that a 503 signals an unavailable reviewed source, and that approving research alone does not activate a scope. These are operationally important behaviors an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads what is returned before the operational caveats, and every sentence carries information. The phrasing is dense and clause-heavy, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (scope support, questions, date policies, recurring_notice_intake descriptor, sources/identities) and covers the auth requirement and a failure mode. Parameter semantics remain thin, which is the only real completeness gap.

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 only 33%: hired_by and project_type are enums with no descriptions, and only 'state' is documented. The description's 'jurisdiction-specific' and 'material supplier' hints loosely touch state and persona but leave hired_by's meaning and the commercial/residential/public distinction unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 precise verb+resource: returns supplier-events-v3 scope support, jurisdiction-specific yes/no/unknown event questions, date policies, and rule identities for a material supplier. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can separate it from calculate_supplier_deadlines without opening either schema.

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?

Indicates the discovery use case clearly ('no delivery dates needed', 'does not consume calculation quota'), which steers toward this tool over the calculate_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating a when-not-to-use condition.

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