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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and clarifies that filter matching is prefix-based, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or response shape beyond what the schema supplies.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy; the core action is front-loaded and the endpoint reference is a compact trailing detail.

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, zero-required read tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool does and how to filter. It could note default paging/return behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 every one of the five parameters is already documented with its own constraints. The description restates three of them at a high level without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List suppliers') and enumerates the available filter dimensions, plus the backing endpoint GET /Suppliers/{page}. The unique entity (suppliers) inherently distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings, though no sibling is named.

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?

It implies usage via 'optionally filtered by code prefix, contact email prefix or modification date', so an agent can infer the filter conditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative tool.

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