validate_supplier_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the tool's name in French. It fails to explain the effects of validation (e.g., status change, irreversibility, authorization requirements), offering no meaningful behavioral insight.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the lack of supplementary information is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

The description is insufficient for complete understanding of the tool's operation. It lacks information about the validation workflow, side effects, or relationship to other validate_* tools, and with no output schema or annotations, the agent cannot infer expected behavior.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter with 'ID de la commande fournisseur', and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Valider une commande fournisseur' clearly identifies the action (validate) and the resource (supplier order). It distinguishes the tool from sibling validation tools like validate_invoice or validate_supplier_invoice by specifying the exact object type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, state requirements, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual cues for tool selection.

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