Find or Create Supplier

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

Annotations are minimal (all false). The description correctly implies mutation via 'optionally create a client', consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, it omits details like resolution logic, duplicate handling, or side effects (e.g., whether it updates existing records). It adds some behavioral context but not enough for full transparency.

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 exceptionally concise (15 words) and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary. However, it could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., separating the search vs creation aspects). Still, it avoids verbosity and is easy to parse.

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 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain resolution behavior (e.g., order of fields tried, matching logic), the effect of auto_create, or what the tool returns. The schema covers individual parameters, but the overall workflow is underdescribed for a find-or-create tool.

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%, so parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond listing the fields. It repeats 'registry code, VAT number, IBAN, or name' but provides no additional semantics such as priority or validation rules. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Resolve supplier') and the resource ('supplier'), listing the search criteria (registry code, VAT number, IBAN, or name) and optional creation. It distinguishes from siblings like get_client (which only retrieves existing) and create_client (which creates without resolving). The term 'client' may cause slight confusion, but overall purpose is 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_client, find_client_by_code, or create_client. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions (e.g., 'use when you need to ensure a supplier exists and optionally create one'). This leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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