List Company Inactive Vendors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is useful but not critical. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. It is concise, with no redundant information, and each sentence adds value (purpose, usage, pagination behavior, required params/API info).

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 list endpoint with high schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, pagination, and required parameters. It does not detail the response fields (no output schema), but 'Directory records' is somewhat ambiguous. Still, it is largely complete for effective use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on using page and per_page for pagination, which is helpful beyond the schema descriptions. However, it doesn't elaborate on the view or sort parameters.

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 it returns a list of 'Inactive Vendors' associated with a Company, using a specific verb (Return) and resource (Inactive Vendors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_company_vendors' which presumably lists active vendors.

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 provides specific use cases: enumerating Directory records, finding IDs, filtering by query parameters. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool, the name and context imply it's exclusively for inactive vendors, and the lack of alternative mention is acceptable.

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