get-vendor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a vendor by ID' without mentioning rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or idempotency. This is insufficient transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence of 8 words with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) given the nested object in the schema. Still, appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool with low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., vendor details like name, address). Since no output schema is provided, the description should offer contextual completeness about return values, but it does not.

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 50% (company param described, id inside params not described). The description adds meaning to the id parameter by stating 'by ID', but does not explain the nested params object or the company parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the action (Get), resource (vendor), method (by ID), and source (QuickBooks Online). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_vendors (which searches) and create-vendor (which creates).

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 clearly implies usage when you have a vendor ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but for a straightforward read-by-ID tool, this is adequate. Siblings like search_vendors exist for searching, but the description does not need to guide there given the tool's simplicity.

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