get_supplier_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful detail: the official site requires a machine exchange token, and without it the tool returns an explicit refusal with a reason rather than empty zero values. This helps an agent interpret failures correctly, though it does not describe the summary contents or any side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the important availability/failure caveat earns its place immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. The token requirement and failure behavior are useful context, but the description omits guidance on choosing between parameters and leaves period semantics unclear. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 50%, with inn and ogrn described but period_from and period_to left undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, does not clarify date format or semantics, and does not compensate for the undocumented period 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 identifies the resource as a supplier summary ('Сводка по поставщику'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on tenders, customer history, or OKPD2. However, it lacks an explicit verb explaining the operation being performed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 token caveat gives a clear condition under which the tool will not work and what to expect instead, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any sibling tool. Usage is implied by the 'supplier summary' purpose rather than directly guided.

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