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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact field set returned, the explicit negative 'bank details are not returned', and the paid-plan gating. It stops short of 5 because no response shape or pagination semantics are described.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: what is returned, what is excluded, the plan gate, and the endpoint. Every clause earns its place and the most important content (the field list and exclusion) leads.

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 present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields and the omitted bank details, while annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers pagination. Only minor gaps remain (no ordering/filtering behavior), so it is nearly complete for a simple paginated list tool.

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% and both parameters (page, page_size) are fully documented in the schema, including the 'pass the previous reply's next_page' hint. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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 and resource ('List suppliers') and enumerates the fields surfaced (address, contacts, currency, credit limit, PO counts), which is much more informative than a restated title. It never names the sibling it is contrasted with (veeqo_get_supplier for a single supplier), so it falls short of the top band for sibling differentiation.

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 genuine availability prerequisite, and the schema's next_page note implies the pagination loop. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance (e.g., list vs. veeqo_get_supplier), so usage is only implied.

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