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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds useful context beyond them: account numbers are omitted, and resource access depends on the Shop Boss API key. It still does not explain pagination or filtering behavior.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the resource and key data caveat. 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but overall it is efficient.

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 five-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication and data omission but omits filtering, pagination, and return-value expectations.

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 only 20%, with four of five parameters undocumented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the missing name, supplierId, page, or pageSize semantics.

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?

The description identifies the resource clearly: supplier contact details and terms. It is less explicit about the list/retrieval action and pagination, but the resource and included/omitted fields are clear enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The implied use case is reviewing supplier contact details, but the agent is left to infer the rest.

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