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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral detail: it mentions 'lists/searches' and lists returned fields, but does not explain pagination, filtering effects, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description adds little beyond them.

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 brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It could be structured better (e.g., separating the purpose from the returned fields), but it remains concise and focused without excess verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters with no descriptions and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to provide critical context about how parameters influence results, pagination behavior, or what the response format will be, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the four parameters (cnpj, page, limit, account), and the description does not explain their roles. There is zero semantic value added for parameter usage, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and purpose of each parameter.

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 clearly states it lists/searches registered suppliers and enumerates the fields returned (company name, trade name, CNPJ, address, contact, status), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as specific filter scenarios or when other supplier-related tools might be more appropriate. It does not mention any conditions or use cases beyond the general listing/searching intent.

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