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 the concrete endpoint path and reveals a siteId scoping query parameter, but says nothing about missing-record behavior or return shape.

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 fragments with the identifying constraint front-loaded and no filler. The trailing '?siteId=.' is slightly cryptic but costs almost nothing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned for a single-supplier fetch, and it does not. For a simple one-parameter lookup with annotations covering safety this is thin but not fatal.

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 is documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the external id concept and surfaces a siteId query parameter that is not in the schema, which adds a little context but also leaves that scoping unclear.

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+resource: retrieves a single supplier identified by its external id, and the endpoint template reinforces that. It is implicitly distinct from safefood360_list_suppliers ('One supplier'), though the sibling is never named.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of safefood360_list_suppliers as the alternative, and no prerequisites or failure conditions. Usage is only inferable from the word 'One'.

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