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

Annotations already disclose destructive and read-only behavior. The description adds value by noting 'full audit trail' and the 'demo: deshabilitada' condition, which are not derivable from annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, the '[demo: deshabilitada]' prefix is a minor distraction and mixed-language note that could be clearer, but it does not make the description overly long.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and adds behavioral context (audit trail). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it omits any mention of prerequisites or response format, which are not strictly needed.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('ID of the supplier to delete'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but it is not necessary given the high schema coverage.

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 'Deletes a supplier from this business', using a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_customer and delete_product by naming the supplier resource.

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 implies usage (when you want to delete a supplier) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like edit_supplier. The context of siblings and the action itself provide sufficient implied guidance.

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