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 bar is lower. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /Suppliers/{page}) and clarifies that code/email matches are prefix-based, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and its optional filters, followed by the API path. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with five fully described optional parameters and a readOnly annotation; the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It omits return-shape and pagination notes, though no output schema exists and page/pageSize are documented in the schema.

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 schema already documents every parameter including defaults and prefix semantics. The description restates the three filters without adding format, syntax, or edge-case detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 suppliers') plus the supported filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools (e.g. unleashed_list_customers, unleashed_list_products), but the resource name is unambiguous.

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 description says the filters are optional and names them, which implies usage for filtered lookup. It provides no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to any alternative sibling tool for supplier lookup, so routing must be inferred.

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