rr_get_suggested_purchase_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the operation without details on side effects, permissions, or expected output (e.g., pagination, filtering defaults).

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?

The description is a single phrase, which is too terse given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. It fails to front-load necessary information, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no context about data sources, filtering logic, or return format, leaving the agent unable to use the tool 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?

The 4 parameters (status, vendor_id, store_id, limit) have no descriptions in schema or description, and the description adds no meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent gets no value from the description for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action (get) and resource (suggested purchase orders). It distinguishes from siblings like rr_get_purchase_order (specific PO) and rr_list_purchase_orders (all POs), though it lacks detail on what 'suggested' means.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no comparison to similar tools like rr_get_demand_forecast or rr_list_purchase_orders.

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