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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds only the 'for this business' scope and does not disclose that the name must be unique, that duplicate names will fail, or any other behavioral consequences. The idempotentHint is questionable given the unique constraint, but the description does not contradict it.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action. The 'demo: deshabilitada' prefix is unnecessary but does not significantly harm clarity.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the call returns, how errors like duplicate name are handled, or any prerequisites. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, email, phone, contactName, leadTimeDays) is already described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Creates a supplier for this business' with a specific verb and resource, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_supplier or delete_supplier. Despite the 'demo: deshabilitada' prefix, the core purpose is 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that edit_supplier should be used for modifications or that there is a uniqueness constraint on the name. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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