pennylane_list_suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are filtered and paginated, which is already implied by the schema; no return/perf/auth context beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentences with essentially no waste; the core action comes first and the use case second. Slightly thin rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not explain returns. For a simple filtered-list tool it is adequate, though it omits any routing hint to get_supplier or create/update_supplier siblings.

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 100%, so name, sort, limit and cursor are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond restating 'filtres et pagination', so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource: listing suppliers, with filters and pagination. It implicitly contrasts with pennylane_get_supplier (single lookup) via 'rechercher un fournisseur par nom', but does not name the alternative explicitly.

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 second sentence gives usage context ('consulter la base fournisseurs', 'rechercher un fournisseur par nom'), which implies browsing/searching scenarios. However, no when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. get_supplier for a known ID) are provided.

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