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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the REST endpoint and that financial totals are gated behind include_total, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how large the listing may be.

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 lines: purpose and returned fields first, filters second, endpoint last. Efficient, though the parenthetical field list is somewhat crowded.

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?

Adequate for a read-only 8-param list tool with full schema coverage, but with no output schema the agent gets no guidance on pagination shape (next_item) or result envelope beyond the field roster.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, so baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of filter fields echoes the schema rather than adding format or matching semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list suppliers) and an explicit field roster of what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from kiotviet_get_supplier or kiotviet_list_supplier_orders, so sibling differentiation is left to name alone.

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?

Implied usage only: filtering by code/name/phone/last change is stated, which hints at search use cases, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs kiotviet_get_supplier (single lookup) or when-not.

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