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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: unfiltered calls return the entire collection, which implies potentially large results, and bulk execution via `ids` is supported.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, followed by scoping semantics and bulk support. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the high parameter count (12), absence of an output schema, and no descriptions in the schema, the description covers only the core retrieval path. It omits pagination behavior, filter syntax, response shape, and other common usage details, so an agent may struggle with correct invocation in non-trivial cases.

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 0% schema description coverage and 12 parameters, the description must compensate, but it only explains `id`, `tipo`, and `ids`. Parameters like `page`, `page_size`, `filter`, `sql_filter`, `fields`, `order`, `expand`, `params`, and `account` remain undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: consulting the customer/supplier registry via the CustomerVendor API. It also distinguishes behavior by input (`tipo`, `id`) and notes that no filter returns the whole collection, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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?

The description explains how to use the tool: no filter returns the full collection, `tipo` selects an entity type, and `tipo` plus `id` returns a specific record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so context is clear but not comparative.

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