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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an authorization constraint (owner or office only), which is genuinely useful. It does not mention duplicate-handling behavior, idempotency, or side effects of creating a vendor, which are meaningful for a mutation tool.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves gaps that clearer structuring could have filled.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the required versus optional fields and format expectations are left for the agent to infer.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only implies name and shop_id while saying nothing about note, email, phone, or account_number. The agent gets no added meaning over bare types.

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?

"Add a supplier the shop buys parts from" gives a specific verb (add) and resource (supplier/vendor), clearly distinguishing this from vendors_list and vendors_update. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the intent 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?

"Owner or office" conveys the permitted caller roles, which is useful context for deciding whether this tool is available to the agent. However, there is no guidance on when to create a vendor versus updating one, or what to do if the supplier already exists.

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