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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /ordersuppliers) and confirms the result shape, but stays silent on pagination mechanics even though the schema's current_item refers to a 'next_item' from a previous reply — a behavior an agent needs to loop correctly.

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 compact sentences: the resource plus returned fields first, then the filter dimensions and endpoint. No filler, though the parenthetical field list and the trailing raw endpoint are dense shorthand that assumes familiarity with KiotViet terminology.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does the work that matters most: it names the returned fields and the available filters, which is enough to decide relevance and construct a call. The only real gap is pagination behavior, which the schema hints at but the description never explains.

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 7 parameters is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the filterable dimensions but adds no semantics beyond the schema — e.g. it does not clarify the numeric KiotViet status codes or that product_key matches code or name.

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 orders placed with suppliers') and enumerates the fields returned (code, date, branch, supplier, status, lines, amount paid), which is more than a restatement of the title. However it does not distinguish this from the closely named siblings kiotviet_list_purchase_orders and kiotviet_get_purchase_order, leaving an agent to guess whether 'supplier orders' and 'purchase orders' are the same resource.

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?

It implies usage by listing the filter dimensions (branch, status, supplier, product text), which tells the agent this is the browsable/searchable list endpoint. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points at the single-record sibling (kiotviet_get_purchase_order) for fetching one known order.

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