list_suppliers

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful piece of behavior beyond annotations — the paginated response shape (page, last_page, total) — which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits default page size, sort default, and what fieldset=detailed returns.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the operation and then the response shape; nothing is padded or redundant. It is terse almost to a fault, but the structure itself is clean.

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 6-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is thin: it never mentions that q accepts Fatture in Cloud filter expressions, that per_page is capped at 100, or that fieldset controls record depth. The pagination note is the only substantive detail in a definition that should carry more weight given the missing output schema.

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 67%, but every parameter explanation lives in the schema (q filter syntax, sort prefix, fieldset enum, company_id fallback) and none of it is echoed or extended in the description. The only parameter-ish word, "page", refers to the response envelope rather than how to use the input, so the description adds no meaning over the schema.

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?

"Elenca fornitori" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic operation is identifiable. However it stops there: it says nothing about scope, filtering capability, or how it relates to siblings like get_supplier, and a reader gets no sense of what a supplier record contains.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent to prefer list_suppliers over lookup, get_supplier, or client_statement, and no prerequisites (company_id resolution, token scope) are mentioned.

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