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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds value beyond them: it discloses the plan/entitlement requirement and that bank details are omitted from the response, both of which an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 compact clauses with zero padding; the core purpose leads, and the caveats (bank details excluded, plan gating) follow. Every fragment 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully warns that bank details are not returned and that the endpoint is GET /suppliers/{id}. Minor gaps remain — no error/not-found behavior and no sense of the other fields returned — but for a one-parameter getter this is close to complete.

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% for the single supplier_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by id' phrasing adds nothing about format or constraints beyond what the schema already states (positive integer, max safe integer).

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 retrieval verb and resource with scope qualifier ('One supplier by id'), which inherently distinguishes it from the plural sibling veeqo_list_suppliers. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the singular/'by id' framing makes the distinction clear without opening either 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?

'Paid Veeqo plans only' is a real eligibility constraint that affects whether an agent should call this at all, so it is more than implied usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus veeqo_list_suppliers or how to react if the plan gate fails.

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