get_vendor

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the context that the result includes the order-sheet templateHtml, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the distinguishing templateHtml detail. No wasted words.

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 simple read tool with a single parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, this description covers the essential purpose and the notable response field. However, it lacks any guidance on parameter semantics or usage context, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The input schema lists vendorId as a required string, but the description doesn't explain what this ID refers to or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it omits any parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one fulfillment vendor'), clearly distinguishing it from list_vendors and mutation tools like create/update/delete_vendor. The added detail about templateHtml further clarifies scope.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a single vendor, but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with list_vendors or specify when to prefer one over the other. No exclusion or alternative is mentioned, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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