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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful data caveat that the schema cannot express: media records use the 'media' category and carry no supplier rating. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or the shape of what comes back.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the media-record caveat follows immediately, so 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?

For a five-parameter search tool with no output schema and no required params, the description covers what is searched and one data caveat but omits what a result looks like, how paging interacts with the search, and any indication of result volume or ordering. Adequate to call the tool, thin for interpreting its output.

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 only 20% – just the 'query' param is documented ('Name or keyword'). The description compensates partially by mapping its three filter axes to name text, category and review status, and the two enum params are self-describing. But page/limit semantics and their bounds remain undocumented in prose, so the low coverage is only partly offset.

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 names a specific verb (browse/search) and resource (THE COOP supplier and media profiles) plus the three filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is implicitly distinct from the singular get_supplier and the generic search sibling, but it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the listed filter axes (name text, category, review status), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or 'get_supplier', and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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