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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds real behavioral context with the one-page-per-call semantics and the pointer to summarize.all_pages for full-dataset totals, but says nothing about default page size, ordering, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination caveat immediately after. The bare API URL is marginal noise but serves as a provenance reference rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 16 parameters are largely covered by schema descriptions. However, for a tool with a nested summarize object and expand/fields projection options, the description leaves those behaviors to the schema and covers only pagination.

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 81%, so most parameters (city, name, email, phone, fields, expand, sortby) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds meaning for summarize.all_pages and the page/limit interaction, with no syntax or defaults given for pagination params.

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 ('Retrieve a list of suppliers') and pins it to the upstream endpoint GET /3/suppliers. It separates itself from the single-record 'get_supplier' by wording ('a list'), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives one concrete usage constraint – 'One page per call; use summarize.all_pages for totals over every page' – which tells the agent how to handle multi-page aggregation. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_supplier or list_supplier_invoices, and no note on filter combinations.

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