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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's 'Read' adds little beyond it. It does add that the response is JSON:API data and relationships, which is modest useful context, but there is no mention of error behavior for a missing or invalid id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return shape and endpoint. No wasted words.

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-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the return shape (JSON:API data and relationships), and the endpoint. It is close to complete, lacking only guidance on obtaining the id or error handling.

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 0%, so the description does some work by calling out 'numeric record id'. However, the schema's pattern ^[0-9]{1,20}$ already enforces numeric-only, and the description doesn't add meaning such as where the id comes from.

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 (Read), resource (TOConline supplier), and cardinality (one, by numeric record id), and the endpoint GET /api/suppliers/{id} confirms scope. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling toconline_list_suppliers.

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 phrase 'one ... supplier by numeric record id' implies single-record retrieval versus the list sibling, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly say to use toconline_list_suppliers to find an id first, nor state exclusions.

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