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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: signed-in-only fields are omitted and counted as `locked`, contact details are never returned, and `rfq_url` is the reach mechanism. That is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling link, then the return-field list. It is on the long side, but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, yet the description enumerates the returned sections (overview, highlights, products, customers, capabilities, certifications, shipment count, similar suppliers, url) and the locked-field behavior, so an agent knows what to expect without a schema.

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% and the slug parameter is fully documented there, including the '/supplier/<slug>' path variant. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one supplier's public profile') and explicitly scopes it to a single supplier, which distinguishes it from the plural discover_suppliers sibling. An agent can tell immediately what it retrieves.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to look closer at a supplier from discover_suppliers,' tying it to the upstream call and making the discover-then-detail flow obvious. It doesn't state explicit when-not conditions, but the alternative is implied clearly.

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