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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, so credit goes to what is added: the set of returned attributes and the fact that the reply carries 'total' and 'next_offset'. This is the paging contract an agent needs and it is not in the annotations; auth/rate-limit details are still absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: scope first, then the field payload, then the paging behavior. Every clause earns its place, including the trailing SOAP operation name for traceability.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-surface information (fields, total, next_offset). Nothing an agent needs to call and paginate it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the paging protocol glue the schema alone doesn't: the reply's 'next_offset' is what feeds the offset parameter, and 'total' signals how much remains. It does not restate limit/offset limits or defaults.

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 ('All suppliers') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's identity unambiguous against 'kashflow_get_supplier' and 'kashflow_list_supplier_receipts'. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opening 'All suppliers' implies the tool is for enumerating the full supplier directory rather than fetching one record, and 'paged here: the reply says total and next_offset' tells the agent how to iterate. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given.

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