Get External Vendors

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the complete set of registered vendors with IDs, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, or potential scale. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element—action, scope, qualification ('registered'), and output ('with their IDs')—earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, this is nearly complete: annotations handle safety, and the description states scope and key return content. The main gap is the lack of an output schema and no mention of the exact list shape or pagination, but that is a minor omission for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is little to document. The description's 'all registered' usefully reinforces that no filtering parameters exist and the result is the complete vendor collection, adding meaning beyond the empty 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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('all registered external vendors in Tebra') while also indicating the key output ('with their IDs'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like tebra_register_external_vendor.

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 phrase 'all registered external vendors' gives clear context: this tool is for retrieving the full vendor list. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but there is no competing list tool for external vendors among the siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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