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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lower. 'Paged.' adds a genuine behavioral signal about pagination, but nothing is said about defaults, ordering behavior, or that an empty result is possible regardless of filters.

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 short sentences, filter scope first and pagination last, with zero filler. 'Paged.' is an abrupt fragment, but it is informative rather than padding.

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 filter-only list endpoint with no required params, no output schema and full schema coverage, the description plus schema are nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that return shape and page-traversal mechanics rest entirely on the schema's 'Use next_page from the previous reply' note.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented with type, maxLength, pattern and defaults. The description only restates the filter field names (name, email, contact person, country, note, tags) without adding syntax, matching semantics, or combining behavior beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the suppliers of the account') and enumerates the filterable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from billomat_get_supplier and the other list_* tools by resource. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 never says when to use this tool versus billomat_get_supplier (single record) or how to retrieve further pages beyond the word 'Paged.' No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are given.

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