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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds that contact details are included in the response, but says nothing about pagination behavior (the cursor loop), result count, or whether deleted records are excluded by default — all things the schema only hints at via parameters.

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 purpose; the endpoint reference is arguably redundant but harmless. Nothing extraneous, nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for return shape, and 'contact details' is only a partial answer. For a simple, zero-required-param list tool with fully covered parameters this is workable but thin.

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 all four parameters (limit, cursor, show_deleted, suppliers_ids) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (suppliers) and adds the payload hint 'contact details' plus the underlying endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the get_* siblings by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with the nearest relatives (loyverse_upsert_supplier, the other list_* tools).

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling upsert_supplier, and no explanation of how pagination should be driven across calls. The agent must infer everything about invocation context.

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