get_vendor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that data is live, identifies the underlying endpoint, enumerates key returned fields, and explains the special `code` parsing behavior. It doesn't cover errors or auth, but for a single-resource GET this is substantive.

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 sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the detail sentence providing only behavior-relevant information. The field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place by helping the agent predict what the tool returns.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations; the description covers the input source, the live-data nature, and the important return fields including the unusual code_metadata parsing. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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% for vendor_id, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds context about where vendor_id comes from and what kind of ID it is, but doesn't need to do more given the schema coverage.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('a single vendor's full details'), and clarifies it returns ~20 fields not available via list_vendors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools without needing to open schemas.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with list_vendors by noting the extra fields, and tells the agent that vendor_id comes from list_vendors or vendors_near. It implies the correct use case but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or why list_vendors would be preferred.

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