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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return surface, the aggregation of equipment types, the 20-works cap, and an important privacy exclusion (contact email and phone are never returned). It does not say what happens when a slug/id is not found, nor whether both identifiers can be supplied or which wins, leaving a small gap for a zero-required-param tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and the fallback alternative, then a dense but scannable field list. The enumeration is long ("logo" is marginal), but every element maps to real returned data, so there is little waste.

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, so the description must describe returns — and it does so in detail, including the recent-works subset and image URLs. The remaining omissions are error/not-found behavior and whether the works list is paginated, which are minor for a single-record fetch.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by framing the two parameters as alternatives ("has a supplier_id or slug"), which tells the agent one identifier suffices even though neither is marked required. It stops short of stating precedence when both are provided.

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+resource (fetch a supplier's full public profile) and enumerates exactly what that profile contains: location, capabilities, tolerances, materials, batch range, certifications, logo, aggregated equipment types, and up to 20 recent works. This is clearly distinguishable from search_suppliers and from the row-level sibling list_supplier_capability_rows.

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 an explicit trigger condition ("when the user has a supplier_id or slug and needs the full public profile") and an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it ("Use search_suppliers first if the supplier is unknown"). No inference required to choose between the two tools.

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