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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the record is returned as it stood (so nothing is lost silently), that the SUP number is never reissued (implying permanence), and the free-tier slot behavior. It does not explicitly warn about irreversibility beyond that, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds important behavioral details. Every sentence adds 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, lookup methods, return behavior, and policy implications. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but for this low complexity it is largely 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?

The schema already provides a clear description of the 'supplier' parameter, including example format and uniqueness condition. The description adds a redundant phrase ('by SUP number or name') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 clearly states the action ('Remove a supplier from the directory') and the resource (supplier), and specifies the two lookup methods (SUP number or name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like supplier_get or supplier_update by the explicit removal action and the return of the prior record.

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 implies this tool is for removing a supplier, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about the free tier and SUP reissuance but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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