List Fortnox Suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination (limit/page), partial-match search behavior, the response_format parameter, and the specific return fields.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns section. It is readable and front-loaded, though the Args list duplicates schema details, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 appropriately explains return values ('supplier number, name, email, city, and organisation number'). It also covers pagination, filtering, and output format. However, it omits potential error cases and ordering/sorting behavior, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, including defaults and enums. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema information, such as 'limit (number): Max results per page' and 'filter ('active' | 'inactive')', without adding new semantic meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('suppliers from Fortnox accounting system'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fortnox_list_customers' and 'fortnox_get_supplier' by focusing on a paginated, filterable supplier list.

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 for listing suppliers with optional filtering and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., 'fortnox_get_supplier' for a single supplier) or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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