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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important auto-creation behavior for suppliers, but it omits permission requirements, side effects, duplicate handling, and what happens if supplier information is insufficient or omitted.

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 core action and immediately followed by the key supplier-resolution rule. There is no wasted text.

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?

The schema is rich and fully documented, which covers parameter-level completeness. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not address prerequisites, return behavior, or selection against similar create tools, leaving meaningful contextual gaps for an 11-parameter mutation 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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a helpful synthesis of the supplier_id versus supplier_name branch, but it does not add syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: "Create a new supplier order (purchase order)." This clearly distinguishes it from generic order creation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with close siblings such as create_order or create_supplier_invoice.

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 gives useful branching guidance for supplier resolution: use supplier_id when the supplier exists, or supplier_name plus address fields to create one on the fly. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings like create_order or create_supplier_invoice, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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