list_suppliers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all suppliers' without mentioning pagination behavior, potential performance implications, or that results may be limited by page/per_page parameters. The word 'all' could mislead agents into expecting a complete, unpaginated response when the schema indicates pagination is possible.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource. The parenthetical German translation is a minor addition that does not detract from conciseness.

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 tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify the return format, pagination semantics, or any filtering/sorting capabilities. Given the presence of pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully predict the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both 'page' and 'per_page' have individual descriptions, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but as per baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when structured data carries the burden.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('all suppliers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_supplier (single entity), create_supplier, update_supplier, and delete_supplier by covering all suppliers. The German translation 'Lieferanten' adds clarity for non-English users.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, preconditions, or relationships with sibling tools like list_received_invoices or get_supplier. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name.

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