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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a state-changing stamp, defaults to today, and that it is the exact marker supplier_due_review reads so the record is no longer flagged stale. It could mention overwrite/idempotency behavior, but the core side effect is clear.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and default date come first, and the second sentence justifies the tool's role in the review workflow, earning 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 two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and downstream effect. It omits explicit return-value information, but no output schema exists and the behavioral context is otherwise sufficient.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating the default-today behavior already in the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Stamp') with a clear resource ('a supplier's record') and the exact state change ('as reviewed on a date'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like supplier_update and supplier_due_review by framing it as the action that clears the stale flag.

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 gives clear conditions for use: after checking contact, terms, and lead time are still true. It also explains the downstream effect on supplier_due_review, making the intended workflow clear, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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