invoiceninja_get_vendor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'with all details,' which loosely signals return breadth but doesn't mention that the 'fields' and 'include' params can narrow/expand that, nor any rate or auth behavior.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and key. It is efficient, though 'with all details' is slightly at odds with the existence of a 'fields' filter and could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description bears some burden for describing returns, and 'all details' is the only hint. For a simple single-record getter whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema is fully documented, this is adequate but minimal.

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%, so all four parameters (id, fields, include, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, 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 ('Get one vendor') plus the lookup key ('by its hashed id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from invoiceninja_list_vendors. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative, but the singular-vs-list distinction is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name/description: fetch a single vendor when you already have its hashed id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_vendors or get_record, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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