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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the capacity limit (10 suppliers, removal frees a slot) and the return format. However, it does not mention failure modes, idempotency, validation behavior, or side effects beyond creation. It is partial disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 sentences: the first states purpose and fields, the second gives the free tier constraint. No filler, front-loaded with the core action and return value.

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?

The description covers the essential context for calling the tool: what it does, what it returns, and a key capacity constraint. It does not mention error handling or explicitly note that only name and category are required, but the schema provides that. For a 10-parameter creation tool, it is reasonably 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description summarizes the fields (name, supply, contact, payment terms, lead time, notes) but adds little beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. It groups them conceptually but does not provide new semantic detail.

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 the action ('Add a supplier'), the resource (directory), and the expected output (SUP-YYYY-NNNN number). It enumerates the fields captured, distinguishing it from siblings like supplier_update or supplier_remove without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this for new suppliers, not existing ones'). It mentions the free tier limit and freeing slots, which is context but not direct routing. The purpose implies creation, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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