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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: page size of 1–100, cursor reuse pattern, the requirement for a Cotlet API key with access to the app, and the important caveat that IDs are per-company and stale after an account switch.

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 most important facts (what it returns, how IDs are used, pagination, auth) are front-loaded, and there is little filler. It loses a point for mild redundancy, restating 'suppliers in your account' across the first two sentences.

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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: returned fields, filtering, pagination mechanics, auth requirement, and the per-company ID caveat. Nothing material is left implicit.

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 adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the pagination contract ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and the 1–100 page range, and by tying the name filter to how IDs are later consumed.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List suppliers') plus what is returned (name and ID) and the optional name filter. It also names the sibling tools that consume these supplier IDs (import_supplier_invoice, list_supplier_invoices), so the agent can place it precisely in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly frames the downstream use case: feed supplier_id into import_supplier_invoice and list_supplier_invoices, and re-look-up IDs after switching companies. That is actionable context, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what the alternative lookup path would be.

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