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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially does: the read-only nature is implied by the 'get' prefix and the returned aggregate is described concretely. It says nothing about whether calling with neither brand nor category is legal, how many results come back, pagination, or any auth/rate constraints.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition and the key metric before the input instruction. The parenthetical clarifying 'suppliers' is functional, not filler; every clause 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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core data model and the input expectation. It leaves open what happens with zero arguments, result volume, and whether the confirmation counts are scoped to the requested brand, which are relevant for correct invocation.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explains that brand and category refer to the brand/category being ungated and that either or both may be supplied, which adds real meaning, but gives no format, matching rules, or behavior when both are omitted.

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+resource (get suppliers) and goes further by defining what counts as a supplier (manufacturers, authorised distributors, wholesalers issuing proper invoices) and what the payload measures (count of Sorsa users who confirmed each got them ungated). It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as get_ungate_status or confirm_ungate_supplier, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 closing line 'Provide a brand and/or a category' tells the agent what input is expected, which is the minimum viable usage guidance. There is no when-to-use framing and no routing against the obvious alternatives (get_ungate_status for status, confirm_ungate_supplier for recording a confirmation), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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