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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description adds value rather than repeating it: default page size 25, hard cap of 200, the paging continuation formula, and the notable fact that this read is issued as POST /purchases/suppliers/list. It does not describe the response shape, which is a minor gap for a list tool with no output schema.

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 to three tight sentences with the core scope and defaults front-loaded and no filler. It is short and every sentence carries information.

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 rich five-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, defaults, pagination and field naming are all covered. Remaining gaps are behavioral nuances an agent may need, such as response ordering guarantees, whether filters on unknown fields error or are ignored, and what the returned records look like.

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 the schema already documents limit, fields, filter, offset and order_by, making 3 the baseline; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the paging rule. It does supply example field names from the Laudus data model, but that sits closer to domain guidance than parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List suppliers (proveedores)') and enumerates its capabilities: filters, sorting, field selection, paging. It is clearly distinguishable from laudus_get_supplier by plurality, though it never explicitly names the sibling.

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?

Gives operational when-to guidance for paging ('When a page is full, ask for the next one with offset = offset + limit') which is genuinely actionable. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over laudus_get_supplier for a single record or over other list tools, so tool selection is left to inference from the name.

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