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 and scope profile is fully covered. The description adds only the REST path, which slightly reinforces that this is a plain read but offers no extra behavioral context (e.g., what is returned, error behavior for invalid ids).

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 compact sentence plus an endpoint reference; the essential action and id source are front-loaded with zero filler.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the shape of the returned supplier record is left implicit, which is acceptable given the read-only hints.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'supplier id'. The description adds provenance value beyond the schema by tying the id to safetychain_list_suppliers, which helps an agent obtain a valid value.

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 even includes the underlying endpoint, making the single-record fetch unambiguous. The parenthetical naming safetychain_list_suppliers cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required id comes from ('an id from safetychain_list_suppliers'), which is the key prerequisite for calling this tool. It does not state when to prefer other get_* siblings (customer, item, location), but for a single-resource fetch that gap is small.

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