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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the paging contract and the fact that the response carries recordCount and next_start_index — essential behavior with no output schema to cover it. It omits auth requirements and the dangling "GET /v1/suppliers/?siteId=" introduces a siteId concept that no parameter exposes and never explains.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, with zero filler. The trailing raw endpoint fragment "GET /v1/suppliers/?siteId=." is terse to the point of being cryptic and references a parameter absent from the schema.

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?

With five fully optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what a record contains, how paging works, and how to continue. Missing only minor context such as default sort order or the semantics of the risk/approval-status values.

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 sort, order, limit, is_archived and start_index are all already documented, including the "pass the previous reply's next_start_index" hint which the description merely repeats. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List suppliers") with an explicit enumeration of the fields returned (name, code, addresses, contacts, approval status, risk, establishment numbers), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_supplier, so an agent must infer single-vs-collection usage from names alone.

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?

The description implies the list/collection use case and explains the pagination protocol ("the reply carries recordCount and next_start_index"), but never states when to reach for this instead of safefood360_get_supplier, nor that the only available narrowing is the is_archived flag. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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