pennylane_get_supplier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that a full supplier record is returned (address, SIRET, IBAN, payment terms), which is useful but overlaps heavily with the output schema that already exists.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the returned-field detail following. Nothing to trim.

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 a 1-param schema at full coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile, the description is nearly complete. A brief note on error behavior for a non-existent id is the only meaningful gap.

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% and there is a single parameter whose schema description already explains it as the supplier's unique identifier. The description's 'par son identifiant' merely restates the schema, so this is baseline territory.

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 and resource ('Récupère le détail d'un fournisseur') and scopes it to a single record via 'par son identifiant', which cleanly separates it from the list/create/update siblings. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use case (fetch one supplier by id) is implied by the identifier-scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-list guidance and no mention of alternatives. Adequate but leaves routing inference to the agent.

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