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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add the important constraint that the actor is an 'authenticated supplier.' However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, whether registration overwrites, or what response the caller can expect.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices specificity — 'what an authenticated supplier can do' is vague. It avoids fluff but omits meaningful details, so brevity is not fully earned.

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?

This is a mutation tool with six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no property descriptions. The description does not explain expected return values, side effects, required-field semantics, or how pricing/metadata factor in. Given the complexity, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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 0% and the description must compensate, but it only hints at two parameters: 'supplier_type' via 'supplier' and 'capability' via 'can do.' Required parameter 'title' and optional 'pricing', 'metadata' and 'description' receive no explanation, leaving most of the six-param schema semantically opaque.

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 identifies a specific action ('Register') and resource ('what an authenticated supplier can do' — capabilities), so an agent can infer the basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_capability or search_capability_suppliers, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'authenticated supplier' implies the intended context: a supplier registering their capabilities. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion such as 'use search_capability_suppliers to find existing capabilities instead.' Usage is implied, not stated.

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