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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope by enumerating what the returned record contains, but says nothing about data freshness, sourcing of the customs/profile sections, or failure behavior when a slug is unknown.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and slug key, then lists the payload. Efficient, though the trailing field enumeration is dense and could be tightened.

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 usefully compensates by listing the record's sections, which is what an agent needs to know before calling. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete, missing only error/empty-result behavior.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'slug' as coming from a search result. The description only restates 'by slug' without adding format or lookup semantics, so baseline 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 ('One supplier's record') and enumerates the record's contents (country, industry, customs history, profile, catalogue, certifications). The singular 'One supplier's record by slug' implicitly distinguishes it from search_suppliers, but it never names the sibling explicitly, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 phrase 'by slug' and the schema hint that this is a follow-up to a search, implying usage, but the description never states when to use this versus search_suppliers or get_product. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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