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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires the API V3 token and specifies the exact endpoint being called. It does not disclose error behavior for missing ids or rate limits, keeping it short of 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?

Three short clauses, each carrying information: identifier scope, auth requirement, and endpoint. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No 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 single-item read with one fully-documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers what's needed. It omits what the response contains, but with no output schema this leaves a small gap; still adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the parameter id and its pattern are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the format hint '(sup_...)' which is already present in the schema pattern, so no meaningful semantic gain. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (one supplier by V3 id), and the identifier format (sup_...) distinguishes it from list_suppliers. The HTTP endpoint is even provided, removing all ambiguity.

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 parenthetical '(sup_...)' and 'from the list tool' imply you obtain ids via the list_suppliers sibling, giving implicit context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the get_client/get_product siblings, nor a stated alternative for fetching multiple suppliers.

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