Show Company Vendor

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a JSON object and the GET endpoint. While it aligns with annotations, it does not disclose additional traits such as potential rate limits, data freshness, or response structure details. Given the annotations, the description's contribution is limited.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences followed by additional API details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy. Every part serves a purpose, and the structure is well-organized.

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 is simple (show single resource), and the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required parameters, and return type. There is no output schema, but the description states it returns a JSON object, which is sufficient. However, it does not address optional parameters like 'view', 'page', and 'per_page', though these are documented in the schema. Overall, the description is nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter explained. The description only reiterates that 'id' and 'company_id' are required, adding no new meaning. According to the guidelines, for high schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not compensate with further parameter insights, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows details of a specific Company Vendor, including the verb 'Show detail' and the resource 'Company Vendor'. It also mentions fetching full details and provides the API endpoint, making the purpose unmistakable. Although there are many sibling 'show' tools, the description uniquely identifies this tool by specifying 'Company Vendor' and 'Directory records', which distinguishes it from similar tools for other entities.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to fetch the full details...'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling tools, such as 'show_company_user' or 'show_project_vendor', the description lacks comparative context to help an agent decide between them. The inclusion of required parameters is helpful but insufficient for complete usage guidance.

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