get_supplier_stats

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the requirement of an API key, missing details on whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any rate limits. The Pro status is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with key requirements. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the two period parameters or how to choose between inn and ogrn. For a 4-parameter tool, the description lacks necessary context for correct usage, especially for the undocumented parameters.

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 50%: inn and ogrn are described in the schema; period_to and period_from lack descriptions. The tool description does not mention the period parameters at all, failing to compensate for the gap. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves supplier statistics by INN or OGRN, using specific verb ('Статистика поставщика') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_tender, search_tenders) by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual tenders or history.

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 mentions the tool is a Pro feature and requires an API key, which implies usage restrictions but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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