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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: a hard rate limit of 5 requests/minute and a 10,000-row page size that drives pagination behavior. It stops short of describing what to do on throttle errors or how the returned payload is shaped, keeping it below a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource, then layers return fields, page capacity, rate limit and endpoint. Nothing is repeated or wasted; each clause carries distinct information.

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 3-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what fields come back, page size, and the harsh rate limit that shapes call pacing. Only minor gaps remain (no note on empty results or error handling on throttling).

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 paging semantics (page/skip/limit and passing next.page / next.skip) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's '10,000 per page' supports the mental model that limit is a window into a large vendor page, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('List the suppliers in the account'), plus the fields returned (Name, IsEnabled), page capacity and the underlying endpoint. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like skuvault_list_brands or skuvault_list_classifications without opening any schema.

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 by the resource name (use when you need the supplier list), and the throttling note warns the agent to pace calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative for narrower lookups. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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