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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no word on duplicate-name handling, what happens if the supplier already exists, or what a successful creation returns. For a non-idempotent create, the duplicate/existence question is exactly what an agent needs and it is unaddressed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economical writing, so it is only adequate.

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?

A mutation tool with eight undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of creation side effects or failure modes. An agent has enough to fire a minimal call with only 'name' but not enough to call it well or predict the result.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only notes that 'name' is required, which the schema's required array already enforces, leaving email format, org_number/vat_number conventions, and country/city expectations undocumented.

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 and resource ('Create a supplier'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings like create_customer or update_supplier, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus update_supplier (for existing records) or list_suppliers (to check existence first). The only guidance is a restatement of the required parameter.

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