Search Suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination details (max 50 results per page, returns empty array if no matches), fallback strategies, usage limits (max 3 calls), and clarifies it's for filtering by exact criteria rather than recommendations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, Filters, WORKFLOW, RETURNS, ERRORS, FALLBACK, NOTE) and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters and workflow considerations, with no redundant information.

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 complex search tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: detailed return format specification, error behavior, pagination limits, workflow integration with get_supplier_detail, fallback strategies, and clear differentiation from sibling tools. It compensates well for the lack of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 11 parameters. The description lists available filters (province, city, factory type, etc.) but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 the tool searches for 'verified Chinese apparel manufacturers, apparel factories, and clothing suppliers' with specific resource scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'recommend_suppliers' as an alternative for ranked recommendations, not filtering by exact criteria.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios with example user queries, clear workflow guidance (primary entry point for discovery, then use get_supplier_detail), and explicit alternatives (use recommend_suppliers for ranked recommendations). It also includes fallback strategies and usage limits (max 3 calls for same question).

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