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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: discovery is free, and no order, payment, or supplier contact occurs — which usefully narrows what openWorldHint=true means here. The remaining weakness is that the SLA terms ('three suppliers, three China business days, refund') describe the paid service rather than this tool's behavior, risking confusion about whether this tool performs the sourcing.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action and payload front-loaded before the pricing and SLA clauses. The commercial terms are somewhat heavy for a tool description but are the reason an agent can decide whether this service fits.

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 correctly names the two things returned (availability and the input contract) and covers cost and side-effect posture. The one gap is the absence of an explicit handoff to prepare_rfq_basic_v0 or the purchase/run siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description still adds value by telling the agent the call returns 'the input contract', i.e. the arguments needed for the downstream invoke/prepare step, which a bare empty schema would not convey.

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 specific verb ('Read') and two specific resources ('current availability' and 'the input contract') for a named, priced service, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name the sibling that continues the flow (prepare_rfq_basic_v0) or contrast with discover_china_supply_check_v0, so differentiation from siblings is only implied by the word 'RFQ Basic'.

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?

'Free discovery; no order, payment or supplier contact' implies this is the no-commitment pre-step before prepare/purchase, which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus prepare_rfq_basic_v0 or what to do with the returned contract, leaving the next-step decision to inference.

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