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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries less burden here. It adds the substring-matching scope and the connection to NPRA records, but does not disclose additional behavior such as result limits, ordering, or relationship semantics.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the search criterion. It contains no filler or 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?

The tool is simple, has one well-documented parameter, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly stronger by relating itself to sibling search tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the single parameter fully, including its case-insensitive substring semantics and length constraints. The description adds little beyond restating that the search is by manufacturer-name substring, so the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action: finding products and related NPRA records based on a manufacturer-name substring. It identifies the resource and the matching criterion, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools.

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 makes it clear when this tool is appropriate: when searching by a manufacturer-name substring. It provides useful context for selection but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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