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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is partly covered, and the description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /supplier/{supplier_id}/) plus the fields returned. With no output schema, describing the response contents is genuinely valuable. It stops short of error/not-found behavior or auth requirements.

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, followed by the returned fields and the raw endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what the returned record contains. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only edge-case behavior (missing/invalid id) is unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents its meaning and origin (from ordoro_list_suppliers). The description adds only 'by id', nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 one supplier by id') and enumerates the payload contents (address, contact details, dropship/PO settings), which cleanly separates it from ordoro_list_suppliers. It doesn't explicitly name the list sibling, but the singular 'one supplier by id' makes the boundary obvious.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use when you have a supplier id and need that record. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or mention of the alternative (ordoro_list_suppliers) in the description itself; that cross-reference lives only in the schema's parameter text.

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