Register External Vendor

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it returns the vendor ID, which is useful for subsequent calls. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, such as duplicate handling or state changes beyond registration, which would be valuable given the lack of idempotency.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the return value in the second. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary purpose and return value. The reference to tebra_update_patient_external_id provides necessary context for the agent's workflow. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether the vendor name must be unique or how to handle errors, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'vendorName' is already well-documented. The description adds a bit of context by noting the purpose is 'for external ID mapping', but it does not provide additional semantics like formatting constraints or examples beyond the schema. 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 action ('Register a new external vendor') with a clear resource ('in Tebra') and a specific purpose ('for external ID mapping'). It also names the downstream use ('Returns the vendor ID to use with tebra_update_patient_external_id'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tebra_get_external_vendors.

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 implies when to use it (before calling tebra_update_patient_external_id), and the mention of the sibling tool provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or when to prefer alternatives, such as tebra_get_external_vendors for listing existing vendors.

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