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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns listed manufacturer profiles (location, website, industries, capabilities)', which reveals the response shape and implies a read-only operation. It also mentions filtering behavior. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or cover error cases, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent for a search tool.

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 description is two sentences: the first establishes the resource and action, the second elaborates on filters and return values. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core aspects: what it searches, what filters are available, and what is returned. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema covers that. It also omits explicit discussion of the sibling tool for alternative paths, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 80%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain name (partial match), country, industry, and capability. The tool description merely lists 'country, industry served, process capability, or name' without adding new meaning. The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema via default/max/min. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the Harness Atlas directory of wire-harness and cable-assembly manufacturers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'find_alternative' by focusing on a directory search rather than alternative-finding. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching the Harness Atlas directory with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with 'find_alternative', leaving a slight gap in exclusions or alternatives.

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