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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the sorting behavior (most overdue first), the default threshold, and the special rule for never-reviewed records. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires any special permissions, or what the output format looks like. The 'Pro feature' note hints at access restrictions but is vague.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds the default behavior, sorting, and edge case rule. The 'Pro feature' note is a minor extra but not wasteful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple report tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: default threshold, sorting, and the never-reviewed edge case. It doesn't describe the output format, but with no output schema, that might be a minor gap. The 'Pro feature' hint is vague but not critical. Overall, it's fairly complete for its complexity.

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 schema already documents the 'days' parameter well. The description adds the default value (90) and the semantic meaning of the parameter (a record is due when last review is older than this many days), which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the default value is useful context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: it generates a report of suppliers whose records have not been reviewed within a specified number of days, sorted by most overdue first. It uses a specific verb ('due-review report') and resource ('supplier records'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like supplier_list or supplier_get by focusing on review staleness.

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 explains the default behavior (90 days unless specified) and the rule that never-reviewed records are always due. It implies when to use this tool (when you need to identify stale supplier records for review), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like supplier_list for general listing. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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