cigchat_list_product_vendors

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

The description discloses the required 'Manage Team' scope, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention pagination behavior, search semantics, default limits, or response format, leaving the full burden on description.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the endpoint, and notes the auth requirement. No unnecessary information or repetition.

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 list endpoint, the description covers the basic action and auth, but lacks usage guidance, pagination behavior, and any indication of the return structure. The schema fully documents parameters, but the absence of output schema and annotations leaves some gaps.

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 all three optional parameters (name, page, limit) documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level details, so the baseline 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 clearly states 'Get list of product vendors' with the HTTP endpoint, making the action and resource specific. It distinguishes from sibling get_info tools by using 'list' rather than 'get info', which is inherently clear.

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 like cigchat_shop_product_vendors_get_info for individual vendor details. The description only mentions a required scope, not typical use cases or exclusions.

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