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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a supplier and returns the new id, but does not address permissions, duplicate-name handling, idempotency, or what happens if required or optional values are invalid.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical about optional contact details is efficient, and the return behavior is stated without unnecessary exposition.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and return value but leaves important gaps. It does not explain leadTimeDays, duplicate handling, or error behavior, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that name is required and that 'other contact details' are optional, which loosely maps to email and phone, but it completely omits leadTimeDays, leaving one of the four parameters unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a supplier'. It also states the required field ('by name') and the return value ('new supplier id'), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_suppliers, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a supplier for the company', so an agent can infer this is the tool for adding a new supplier. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no advice about checking for existing suppliers via list_suppliers before creating, and no stated prerequisites.

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