get_suppliers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that only 'actifs' (active) suppliers are returned, which is a behavioral filter. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether the operation is read-only (though 'lister' implies it), potential pagination, or any side effects. The description is not misleading, but it lacks additional context.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the action, the second states when to use it. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description provides the core purpose and usage context. It mentions the output includes suppliers and their usual products, which gives some return-value information. Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for most practical scenarios, though it could be slightly more explicit about the data structure.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty property set). According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4 since there is no parameter information to add. The description focuses on the output, which 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 uses the specific verb 'Lister' (list) and names the resource 'fournisseurs actifs' (active suppliers), making it clear this returns a list of active suppliers. It adds 'avec leurs produits habituels' (with their usual products), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_item_stock or get_low_stock_items.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Utiliser pour savoir auprès de qui commander un produit, ou avant de créer une commande fournisseur' (Use to know from whom to order a product, or before creating a supplier order). It provides clear use cases but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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