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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: exact output shape, sort order, format suitability (spreadsheets vs docs/wiki/README), and the licensing difference between CSV and Markdown. This goes well beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact: output shape and ordering, format use cases, filtering guidance, and pricing/licensing. This is an appropriately sized, well-structured description.

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 read-only export tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, the ordering, how to narrow results, and a key licensing constraint. It is sufficient to guide a correct call, though it leaves file-delivery mechanics (e.g., inline content vs attachment) unstated.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning: CSV is positioned for spreadsheets, Markdown for docs/wikis/READMEs, and q/category are described as subset filters. It does not add syntax-level detail, but it improves practical understanding of the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export the supplier directory as CSV or a Markdown table.' It adds concrete scope details—every field, one row per supplier, A to Z by name—making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like supplier_list or supplier_get.

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?

It gives a concrete usage condition: filter by category and free text first if only part of the directory is wanted. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives such as supplier_list or supplier_get for lightweight viewing, so tool-selection guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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