list_purchase_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes the ordering behavior (newest first) and the limit ceiling of 1-100, but says nothing about the 25-row default, total counts, or whether results page beyond limit — the kind of detail that matters for a listing tool.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and immediately usable; the Args block is justified here precisely because the schema documents nothing. Slight waste in restating argument names without added detail in a couple of cases, but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and all four optional parameters are explained in the description. A 4 rather than 5 because the absence of any pagination or result-count signal leaves an agent guessing how to retrieve beyond the first page.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it clarifies what supplier and cost_centre identify, enumerates the five valid status values that the schema does not constrain via enum, and bounds limit at 1-100. Remaining gaps are the unstated default of 25 and the argument types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List purchase orders") plus an ordering guarantee ("newest first"), which distinguishes it from the singular get_purchase_order by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, but the plural/list framing makes the read-many vs read-one split 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 filter arguments imply the intended use — browsing/narrowing a collection by supplier, cost centre, or status — but the description never states when to prefer this over get_purchase_order, nor when to use which filter. With thirteen siblings, including several single-record operations, an explicit routing sentence would have earned a higher score.

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