party

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint true, readOnlyHint false, which aligns with the description's mention that vendors are read-only (no create/update/delete mutations). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the API limitation for vendors and the operation semantics. No contradictions.

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 clear sections (NOTE, Operations, Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with its purpose and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, multiple operations, output schema exists), the description covers input parameters, the read-only vendor limitation, and return format. It could be more detailed on error cases or specifics of the output schema, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Overall, it is quite complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by thoroughly explaining each parameter: operation (list of operations), party_type (customer/vendor), party_id (required for get/update/delete), data (dict with key fields like name, email, address structured), query (search text), page, page_size. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 'Customer and vendor management in Wave' and lists specific operations (list, get, search, create, update, delete) with differentiation between customer (full CRUD) and vendor (read-only). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the API's limitation.

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 for when to use read vs write operations and notes that vendors are read-only. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (account, item, etc.) or state when not to use this tool. Still, the guidance on operation and party_type is strong.

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