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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the two source registers, the newest-first ordering, and the paged result shape. It does not quantify coverage or latency, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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, zero filler, and the scope clause and the honest-scope warning are front-loaded where an agent will read them first. The framing caveat earns its place because it prevents a plausible misinterpretation of otherwise sparse procurement data.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers source, ordering and paging for a 5-parameter tool, and the country tie-break risk lives in the schema. It is close to complete; only the missing pointer to sibling tools keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents ico, limit, years, offset and country (including the cross-country IČO ambiguity warning). The description only gestures at 'paged' and 'newest first', adding no format or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource — public procurement contracts this company is party to — and pins the data sources (SK CRZ + CZ Registr smluv), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also pre-empts the most likely misreading by denying the commercial supply chain framing. It stops short of 5 because it never differentiates from sibling lookups (company_brief, get_company_details) and the name 'find_suppliers' is arguably misleading versus the actual return type.

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?

There is a genuine usage signal in 'do not present it as one' — a constraint on how the output should be framed — plus implicit context about which registers are covered. But it never states when to reach for this tool over company_brief, get_company_details, or check_compliance, and gives no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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