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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description's only contribution is the phrase 'with payment details,' which vaguely suggests the returned records carry payment information. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, empty results, or how filtering narrows the set, all of which would be useful context beyond the annotation.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the sentence is not front-loaded with a verb and conveys almost no actionable information. Brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what a supplier record contains and how results are paged, but 'with payment details' is the only hint and is ambiguous. For a paginated list tool with three parameters, an agent still lacks enough information to know what comes back or how to page through results.

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%, with page, query, and pageSize each fully documented in the schema including the filter syntax and examples. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 text is a noun phrase, 'Suppliers of the company with payment details,' that essentially restates the name and title 'List suppliers' rather than stating an action. The only added information is that supplier records include payment details, which hints at return content but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like bokio_list_supplier_invoices or bokio_get_customer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list endpoint versus bokio_list_supplier_invoices, bokio_get_customer, or bokio_list_customers. The read-only retrieval nature is only implied by the word 'suppliers' and the readOnlyHint annotation, not by any explicit when-to-use statement.

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