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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description still adds substance: no provider API is executed, no payment is made, and results are explicitly unverified metadata rather than authorization. That distinction between discovery and entitlement is real information an agent cannot get from the annotations alone. A residual gap is that nothing is said about result freshness or rate limits.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with the selection condition, and each following sentence adds a distinct fact. Minor redundancy between the title's "no authorization implied" and the body's "not authentication rights," but nothing is wasted overall.

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 covers the essential risk profile (read-only, no execution, no payment) and characterizes the return payload as unverified names and prices, which suits a tool with no output schema. However, with zero schema description coverage it leaves the agent guessing at what a valid "capability" string looks like and what limit does, which matters for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it: "Supply the explicit capability and search terms" maps to the two required fields but explains nothing about valid value formats. The limit parameter (default 5, max 10) is never mentioned, and "explicit capability" is undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("search several candidate third-party APIs") and frames it against an inferior approach ("individually browsing suppliers"). It contrasts implicitly with the owned/quote siblings by stressing "unverified supplier names and prices, not authentication rights," though it never names a sibling tool outright.

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?

"Choose when an agent wants to search several candidate third-party APIs" gives a clear triggering condition plus a rejected alternative (browsing suppliers individually). It stops short of routing the agent to the adjacent quote_provider_batch or find_owned_api tools for follow-up steps, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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