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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 1-based paging convention and, more usefully, that company results expose a slug that routes to the detail tool. No auth or rate-limit detail, but the added workflow insight is meaningful.

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 tight clauses, purpose front-loaded, no wasted words. The follow-on navigation hint is placed after the core purpose where it belongs.

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 two-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, parameter semantics, paging, and the next-step tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so both 'q' and 'page' are already documented in the schema and the description only restates them (required q, 1-based page). With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search ImportYeti company or supplier records') and pins the required parameter 'q'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling importyeti_company by noting that a result's slug leads there for details.

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?

Clear workflow context: use this to find a company, then follow the slug into importyeti_company for company/shipment details. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. when not to search), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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