get_ap_vendor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states 'Fails loudly,' hinting at error handling but does not describe success behavior, return format, side effects, or idempotency. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary words and gets to the point. However, the note about '[Not in LCS /v1]' could be integrated more elegantly, but overall it is well-structured for brevity.

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 simple get tool with one required parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no parameter documentation, no behavior details beyond failure, and no explanation of the output, it falls short of providing complete contextual information. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 input schema has one required parameter, vendor_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain vendor_id at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the raw schema. An agent cannot infer the format, purpose, or constraints of this parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Get an AP vendor,' which is a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like create_ap_vendor, update_ap_vendor, and list_ap_vendors, the verb 'Get' clearly distinguishes this as a retrieval tool. The notation '[Not in LCS /v1]' is a version note but does not hinder purpose clarity.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where other tools like list_ap_vendors might be more appropriate. The description lacks any usage direction.

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