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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the substantive behavioral fact that this is a static informational lookup covering buyer-policy topics, but adds nothing about caching, freshness, or limits.

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 resource front-loaded followed by a parenthetical topic list; every phrase maps to actual returned content. It is slightly fragmentary and omits a verb, but there is no padding.

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-value detail is correctly left out, and annotations cover safety. For a zero-argument read tool the description supplies enough topical scope for an agent to decide to call it, with only the sibling-routing question left open.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call is argument-free. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific resource (Tarigri Surgical company information) and enumerates the concrete content it returns: contact details, business hours, ordering process, and buyer FAQ topics. That enumeration implicitly separates it from the catalog-oriented siblings, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the place to look for MOQ, OEM, certification, market and pricing-policy questions. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and 'pricing' overlaps with the sibling estimate_quote without any note on which to prefer.

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