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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the tool is free, is non-transactional ("never executes a purchase"), and outlines the downstream payment flow (USDC on Base, eip155:8453, x402). What it omits is return shape/pagination and whether the listing is static or live, but the safety and cost profile are clearly disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences are functional. The payment-workflow and Telegram-contact detail is somewhat beyond this tool's own scope and could live in a shared doc, but each sentence still earns its place for an agent navigating the API.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return contents, and it does (8 categories plus due_diligence bundle, each with verified-supplier counts). It is complete enough to call correctly with no arguments, missing only response-format specifics.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the category identifiers that will appear in results, effectively documenting the value domain even though there is no input to describe.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List APM's 8 procurement categories") and even enumerates the categories, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the due_diligence bundle and the payload detail (verified-supplier counts), which cleanly separates it from siblings like apm_quote or apm_preview.

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?

It states the tool is free and never executes a purchase, and routes the agent to apm_quote and POST /task?quote=<quote_id> when the goal is actually executing a purchase. It also names a human escalation path for bulk/unmatched needs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with apm_preview or apm_register, so it's clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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