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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description confirms it lists suppliers with contact details. It adds no further behavioral context such as pagination semantics, soft-delete handling, or rate limits, though those are partly covered by the schema parameter descriptions.

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?

One short purpose sentence followed by an endpoint reference; front-loaded and free of filler. The second sentence is largely redundant given the tool name and could be dropped, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 simple read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and annotation-declared safety, this is sufficient. No output schema exists, but since the description needn't explain return values in depth, the omission is minor.

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%, with limit, cursor, show_deleted, and suppliers_ids all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no formatting, filter-combination, or ordering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a return-content hint ('with their contact details'). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling list_* tools by noun alone, but offers no explicit contrast with loyverse_upsert_supplier or loyverse_list_customers.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name, and the trailing 'Loyverse: GET /suppliers/.' adds endpoint notation rather than selection guidance.

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