List suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that contact details are returned, which is minor but useful context. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or how soft-deleted records are handled, but given the annotations, the bar is lower; this description provides some value beyond the schema.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the added detail about contact details is valuable without clutter.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, the default limit, how to use suppliers_ids for filtering, or whether soft-deleted records are included by default. The schema covers some parameter semantics, but an agent would need more context to use this tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 67%: limit and show_deleted have descriptions, but suppliers_ids lacks one. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it does not compensate for the missing suppliers_ids documentation. The schema itself handles the described parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List suppliers with their contact details.' It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds the nuance that contact details are included, which distinguishes it from a simple count or ID-only list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_supplier, though the plural 'suppliers' makes the intent evident.

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 like loyverse_get_supplier for a single supplier or loyverse_upsert_supplier for writes. The plural form implies listing multiple records, but there is no explicit statement of the use case or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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