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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are returned newest first and that searching is by supplier attributes, which implies a read-only operation. It does not state what happens when no filters are supplied, whether results are paginated beyond limit, or what supplier fields are returned.

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?

The description is two compact sentences and front-loads the search fields. The ordering detail is useful but partly redundant with the schema's limit description, so it is not perfectly waste-free.

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 six-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core search dimensions and ordering. It leaves important gaps around empty-filter behavior and result shape, so it is adequate but not 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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including partial matching for name and the limit default. The description adds little beyond restating the same searchable fields and expanding uid to VAT/CUI, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: search suppliers. It also lists the searchable fields, so an agent can distinguish this from create_supplier or update_supplier. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from sibling search tools such as search_clients, but the supplier resource 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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: use this when looking up suppliers. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as update_supplier, search_clients, or get_supplier_document, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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