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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description goes further by listing specific actions it does not perform, which adds valuable behavioral context about its safe, non-operational scope. This goes beyond what annotations state.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the negative list in the second. It is concise, well-structured, and every word contributes to clarifying scope.

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 should explain what the response looks like or how results can be used, but it does not. It also fails to reference related tools like inspect_external_supply_candidate for follow-up actions, leaving the agent without sufficient context for a tool with 9 parameters.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no extra semantic meaning for the parameters, but the schema already carries the load adequately.

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 identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('local public-safe external marketplace supply metadata'), and includes a negative list that distinguishes it from sibling tools that call or execute services. This makes the tool's purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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 negative list ('Does not call, execute, submit, spend, settle, rank, trust, verify, ready, publish, or expose raw payloads') implies this is for read-only discovery, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like list_external_supply_sources or inspect_external_supply_candidate. Usage is inferred rather than directly stated.

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