List vendors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine scope boundary (vendor data is read-only in Wave's API, bills unavailable), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination or result volume.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the API limitation follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an eight-parameter read-only listing tool whose schema fully documents all inputs and whose annotations cover safety, the description supplies the one non-obvious thing the schema cannot: that write operations and bills simply do not exist in this API. Return shape is not described, but no output schema exists, so that is a minor residual gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter including page, pageSize, search, detail, and the modifiedAt filters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List vendors') and adds the synonym '(suppliers)', which helps the agent match a user's wording. It does not explicitly contrast with wave_get_vendor, but the list-vs-single distinction is implicit in the verb.

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?

Provides clear negative guidance — no create/update/delete of vendors and bills are not exposed — which stops the agent from hunting for nonexistent sibling tools. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to use instead.

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