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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: archived suppliers are included and carry `archived: true`, and archiving hides nothing server-side. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 packed sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, and the archived behavior is added as a valuable clarification without bloating the description.

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?

Given the low complexity, readOnly annotation, and rich parameter schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, that archived suppliers are included, and the server-side behavior around archiving. The pagination details are already fully specified in the parameter descriptions, so repeating them here would add no value.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond saying the response includes id and name, which is output-focused rather than input-focused. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('suppliers'), and also clarifies the response shape ('id and name'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list_* tools by naming the exact resource and noting archived suppliers are surfaced.

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 makes the tool's intended use clear: retrieving the business's suppliers. The archived note adds useful context about when this tool is appropriate (even when archived suppliers are needed), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it.

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