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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious context the schema cannot express: that access is restricted to the creator and supplier, that a supply:write scope is needed even for a read, and that private pricing must not leak outside the authorized context.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the operation, and the permission requirement is placed early. But the closing sentence is a vague confidentiality admonition ("Keep private prices and source references inside this authorized business context") whose actionable meaning is unclear, and "continuing supply relationship" is imprecise phrasing that costs clarity for little gain.

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?

There is no output schema and the description says nothing about what is returned — status, terms, pricing, counterparty details are all unstated. Combined with an undocumented id format, an agent cannot confidently form a request or interpret a response from this definition alone.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single supply_id parameter and fails to: it never mentions the id, its opaque prefixed format, or where an agent obtains one (presumably from list_business_supplies). The agent is left to infer the entire input contract.

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 ("Read one continuing supply relationship") and the singular "one" implicitly distinguishes it from evuun_list_business_supplies. However, "supply relationship" is domain jargon that leaves the actual content of the object ambiguous, and no sibling is named 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus evuun_list_business_supplies, evuun_decide_business_supply, or evuun_request_business_supply. The only guidance is an authorization prerequisite ("Explicit supply:write permission required"), which is a gate, not a usage condition.

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