get_vendor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the lookup-by-ID behavior but nothing else: no mention of authorization, null/not-found behavior, whether related objects are included, or response format. For a simple read operation this is minimal viable disclosure, but lacks depth.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, and the key lookup criterion is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval, though it could add a sentence about return behavior or related tools without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core call pattern. It is incomplete in a contextual sense because it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_vendors or how to handle non-existent IDs, and with no annotations there is no safety/read-only hint. Still, the simplicity of the tool keeps it at a 3.

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?

The schema documents the single required id parameter with type and exclusiveMinimum, and only requires an 'id' value. Since there is only one param and the description explicitly says 'by ID', meaning is clear. With 0% schema description coverage but a single obvious integer parameter, the description sufficiently reinforces the parameter's purpose, so a 4 is appropriate rather than the low-coverage penalty.

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 'Get a vendor by ID' clearly states the operation (get) and the resource (vendor), with a specific lookup criterion (by ID). It distinguishes itself adequately from list_vendors, but does not explicitly mention which siblings to compare against, so it misses a point for not explicitly differentiating from other vendor-related tools.

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 implies usage: call this when you need a single vendor by ID. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided, and there are sibling tools like list_vendors that could be confused. The guidance is minimal but the purpose is straightforward, so it earns a 3.

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