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

Annotations only declare the read-only safety profile; the description adds the substantive behaviors: results are unpaged (so a search should be passed), only stock-managed items are returned, and missing items are almost always explained by stock tracking being off. That is real operational context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the consumer of its output, and every sentence carries information. It is dense with em-dash asides and runs three long sentences, so it is slightly heavier than it needs to be, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns ('returns everything matching, unpaged') and covers the tool's edge case around missing items. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret an empty result.

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 100%, so both params are already documented. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting supplierId (whole linkable catalogue) and why a search should be supplied (unpaged return), though it adds nothing about the search matching semantics already in the schema.

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 ('catalogue items this supplier does NOT carry yet but could') and positions itself precisely against siblings — it is the picker behind 'add items to supplier' and feeds link_supplier_items. An agent can distinguish it from hub_get_supplier_items and hub_link_supplier_items without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit workflow routing: feed results to link_supplier_items; omit supplierId to search the whole catalogue while deciding which supplier to create. It even covers the negative case — what to say when an expected item is missing from both this tool and get_supplier_items.

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