List Vendors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying pagination (page and page_size), default values, and the return fields (identifier, name, contact details). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the output shape, which is especially helpful since there is no output schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core behavior and then provides parameter details in an easily scannable format.

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 a simple paginated list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It states the purpose, scope, all parameters with defaults, and the return fields (identifier, name, contact details). Since there is no output schema, the explicit return information is critical and provided. No additional behavior or edge cases need explaining for this straightforward read-only operation.

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 100%, with each parameter already described in detail (type, defaults, ranges, enum for response_format). The description's Args section replicates the schema almost verbatim, adding no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'List vendors (suppliers) used on purchase orders, paginated.' The verb 'List' plus the specific resource 'vendors (suppliers)' and the scope 'used on purchase orders' distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_customers or list_products. The added scope prevents ambiguity with potentially similar entity types (e.g., retailers).

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 provides clear context by specifying that this lists vendors used on purchase orders, implying when to use it (e.g., when looking up PO-related suppliers). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance. The implicit exclusion of vendors not on POs is a clear contextual hint.

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