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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'Read live from the CPG Knowledge Graph door' adds that results come from a live graph read rather than a cache, which is genuine extra context, but nothing is said about result shape, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the filter dimensions are stated up front. The only waste is the decorative 'CPG Knowledge Graph door' phrasing.

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 return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage on four parameters and no usage routing, an agent cannot confidently construct a call or know when this tool beats find_buyer.

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 must carry all four parameters. It loosely covers segment and region (and mentions 'market', which is not even a parameter), but leaves 'node' and 'limit' entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 verb (Find) and resource (makers/brand makers) plus filter dimensions (segment, region, market), which is enough to separate it from find_buyer at a glance. However, 'on the consumer goods record' and 'the CPG Knowledge Graph door' are cryptic framing rather than specifics, and no sibling is named for differentiation.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as find_buyer, resolve_actor, or resolve_gtin. An agent must guess which discovery tool fits a given query.

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