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 only the raw endpoint path (GET /purchases/suppliers/{id}), which gives no behavioral context beyond that - no not-found behavior, no auth/permission notes.

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, front-loaded with the action. The endpoint path in the second sentence is low value for an agent but costs little.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient to call correctly. What the response contains and failure behavior for a bad id are left unstated.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'By id' merely restates what the property name supplier_id already conveys, adding no format, range, or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain the id).

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 ('Get a supplier by id'), which clearly separates it from the list-style siblings such as laudus_list_suppliers. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by id' implies you must already hold a supplier identifier, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus laudus_list_suppliers, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens with an unknown id.

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