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

The annotations already convey read-write (readOnlyHint false), destructive (destructiveHint true), and idempotent (idempotentHint true) hints. The description adds the valuable note that the tool is '[demo: deshabilitada]' (disabled in demo), but does not provide additional behavioral context like what exactly gets created, required permissions, or consequences of invocation.

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 description is a single, efficient clause, front-loaded with the demo-disabled note. It avoids fluff, though the bracketed note is a metadata aside rather than descriptive prose, slightly reducing structural polish.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly thin. The schema covers parameter details and the demo-disabled note adds an important caveat, but the description does not explain the return format, validation rules, or what the destructive hint means in practice. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, including the conditional relationship between supplierId and supplierName. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it does not elevate the baseline score.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Creates') and the object ('procurement order (purchase request)') with a recipient ('to a supplier'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_product or create_supplier, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely restates the action without providing context such as 'use when ordering items from a supplier' or referencing siblings like create_supplier.

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