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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing what a result contains (address, contact, bank, VAT id, payment terms, expense account) even though no output schema exists. Pagination behavior and default result size are only in the schema, not the description.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and record type, then the filter axes, then return contents. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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?

With no output schema, the return-field summary is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether this tool answers its question. The remaining gaps (paging, default limit, empty-result behavior) are adequately covered by the 100%-covered schema rather than the description.

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 coverage is 100%, with limits, ranges and even the offset-chaining hint documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the filter categories already covered by parameter descriptions, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Search Collmex vendors/suppliers') and even names the underlying record type (VENDOR_GET), which makes the domain unambiguous. It does not explicitly route against similar siblings such as collmex_list_addresses or collmex_list_customers, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 enumerated filter dimensions (vendor number, free text, postal code, country) imply how to constrain a search, and that all are optional is visible in the schema. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative for overlapping lookups like address or customer lists.

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