Get Vendor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it 'Returns full contact details', which provides output context, but this is covered by the output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short (two sentences) but includes a bilingual repetition, which slightly reduces conciseness. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the second sentence in Spanish is redundant for an English tool.

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?

Given a single required parameter, clear annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple get-by-ID tool. It mentions the return includes contact details, which aligns with the output schema. However, it does not explicitly address error cases (e.g., vendor not found), but that is acceptable for this context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description only references 'by their ID' without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value 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 'Get a single vendor/supplier by their ID', specifying the verb (get), resource (vendor), and scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vendors or update_vendor, though not explicitly, but the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when you need a specific vendor by ID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_vendors for multiple vendors or update_vendor for modifications. The guidance is minimal.

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