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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It adds genuine context beyond them: facts carry verification date and sources, and location data is reported not guaranteed — a real caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

The usage trigger is front-loaded and followed by a dense list of covered topics. The second sentence is long but every clause (verification date, sources, location caveat) carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the fact categories are covered well. Missing for a 6-parameter tool is any guidance on paging (limit/offset), on the 'provider' parameter or how it interacts with 'include', leaving parts of the contract undocumented.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates only partially: it names the categories that map to 'include' and adds meaning to location data. limit, offset, provider, and the supplierId constraint are left entirely to the schema; pagination behavior is never explained.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('how a supplier works') and it enumerates concrete fact categories: plans and monthly fees, custom branding, checkout, support, refunds, printing locations, print providers. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like supplier_guide, list_suppliers, or get_supplier_prices, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

A clear trigger scenario is stated ('Use this when a seller asks how a supplier works') followed by an explicit content checklist. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion is given, so the agent gets a positive condition but no routing rule against supplier_guide or get_supplier_prices.

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