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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses scope limits (first result page, ~10 listings) and a non-obvious cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged) — information an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It does not say whether deeper paging exists or how rate limits behave, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope and pricing. The field enumeration is dense and partly redundant with the output schema, but every clause is informational and nothing is 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 the return-field list is redundant rather than necessary, but cost, payment rail, failure billing, and the first-page-only limitation cover the operational gaps. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that the default page is 'about 10 listings', which loosely contextualizes the limit parameter but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource precisely: Indian wholesale suppliers/manufacturers on IndiaMART searched by product keyword, with a concrete field inventory. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like thomasnet or yellowpages via the IndiaMART/India sourcing angle, though it lacks an explicit verb framing (it reads as a data inventory rather than 'searches X').

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the product-keyword input and IndiaMART domain make the sourcing use case obvious, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing (e.g., 'use thomasnet for US suppliers').

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