GET /suppliers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description owes context beyond that. It provides none — no indication of default page size, whether unfiltered results are truncated, or what the supplier collection contains beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation suppliers.') is pure provenance noise that consumes half the definition without informing any decision. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A 15-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no annotation support for pagination or filtering semantics demands a real description, and this one has none. An agent cannot tell whether the ten string params filter server-side, whether results are paged by default, or what shape the response takes.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and delivers nothing. The codegen-added params (sort, limit, offset, order, search) are self-labeled, but the ten filter fields — fax, url, zip, city, name, email, notes, address, country, address2 — are completely undocumented as to whether they are exact-match filters or something else.

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 is essentially 'GET /suppliers' plus a codegen provenance note, which restates the tool name and title without adding interpretation. An agent can infer it retrieves a supplier collection, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like snipeit_gen_suppliersid (single supplier fetch) or snipeit_gen_companies beyond the endpoint path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus snipeit_gen_suppliersid or snipeit_raw_request, no mention of pagination defaults, and no preconditions. The agent must guess based solely on the endpoint name.

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