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

Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful consequence that the stamp is read by supplier_due_review and makes a reviewed record stop being stale, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 focused sentences; the core action and default are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains integration and effect without filler or redundant detail.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema stamp operation, the description covers what, when, precondition, and downstream effect. It could mention what happens if the supplier is already reviewed or not found, but that is a minor gap.

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 covers both parameters at 100% with formats, defaults, and examples. The description restates the default-today behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Stamp'), the resource ('supplier's record'), and the temporal behavior ('on a date, today by default'). It also names the downstream consumer (supplier_due_review) and the effect (no longer flagged stale), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools in the supplier_* family.

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 states the precondition explicitly: the user has checked contact, terms, and lead time. It also explains the relationship to supplier_due_review, which reads the stamp. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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