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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what data comes back (id, NIF, country, expense count), which helps the agent interpret results. It doesn't mention pagination behavior for the limit param.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, then the use cases. No wasted text; every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing returned fields. For a simple read-only listing tool with annotations, this is nearly complete; only the limit pagination behavior 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?

At 50% schema coverage, only 'search' is documented in the schema; 'limit' has just defaults/bounds with no description. The description mentions neither parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 for the documented half only.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (suppliers/proveedores) and enumerates the returned fields (id, NIF, country, expense count). The agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_customers or list_expenses without opening the 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?

Explicitly names two concrete use cases: finding supplier_id for create_expense, and checking existence before creating a supplier. This routes the agent clearly, though it doesn't state exclusions or mention alternative discovery paths.

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