list_suppliers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the filtering semantics and pagination, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, default ordering, what fields are returned, or that only_active defaults to true. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a tight bulleted parameter list. No wasteful sentences, though the parameter bullets are somewhat terse.

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?

With 4 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers intent and parameter meaning but leaves behavioral gaps: return format, ordering, and permission requirements are absent. Adequate but not complete for an unannotated tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining each of the four parameters: name_contains is a partial-match filter, only_active maps to is_active=1, and range_start/range_limit handle pagination. It omits the defaults (e.g., only_active=true), but meaningfully documents every 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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing suppliers registered in GLPI. This clearly distinguishes it from create_supplier, update_supplier, and delete_supplier siblings by verb. However it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer or when, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 read-only listing nature is implied by the verb and by the filter/pagination params, but the description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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