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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the call does not contact anyone, stores nothing, refuses personal data, and returns a link for the user to open. These are key behavioral traits (non-contact, non-storing, input validation) clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main action (turn need into link) is front-loaded, followed by concrete behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the output is a link the user opens, and covers input constraints and side-effect-free behavior. For a single-required-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though it doesn't detail response format beyond the link.

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 coverage is 100% and describes both parameters in detail, including the personal-data refusal. The description repeats this but adds no new semantic nuance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (turn a need into a link) and resource (adviser builds a brief, matches supplier's stock). It distinguishes itself from product/brand-focused siblings by emphasizing this is the only route to a supplier.

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 gives explicit context: this is how someone actually reaches a supplier, and states there are no contact details in the server. But it doesn't name sibling alternatives or explicitly say 'use this instead of X'. The guidance is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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