brc_list_suppliers

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Lists BRC suppliers' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, supports pagination, or has any side effects. The schema hints at pagination and filtering, but the description omits these important behaviors.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings. While brevity is valued, the lack of structure and missing important details makes it inadequate.

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 complexity of the tool (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the returned data, pagination behavior, or filtering support. The presence of many sibling list tools further necessitates a more complete description to guide selection.

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 43% (only 3 of 7 parameters have descriptions), which is low. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it fails to explain the purpose or usage of parameters like top, page, skip, and pageSize. The description must compensate for low coverage, but it does not.

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 'Lists BRC suppliers,' which identifies the specific resource (suppliers) and action (list). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling list tools such as brc_list_supplier_account_trans, which also involve suppliers but for account transactions.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether to use it for obtaining a full list of all suppliers or for filtering. There are no instructions on prerequisites or context.

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