netsuite_get_vendor_by_external_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the underlying mechanism (RQL on the vendor list, then enrichment with full details) and specifies the return structure, which conveys that this is a read-only lookup. It does not mention error cases or authorization, but for a simple read operation the provided behavioral details are sufficient.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and packs in the method, enrichment step, and return shape without any filler. Every sentence 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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, this description is complete: it tells the agent what it does, how it works, and exactly what the response looks like. It also fits well alongside sibling tools by making the lookup-by-externalId distinction obvious.

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 already documents externalId as a string with an example, and coverage is 100%. The description adds context by explaining that the externalId follows the pattern 'spk_supplier_<spendeskId>' and that it's the NetSuite external ID, which helps the agent understand the intended value format beyond the raw 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 ('Find') paired with a clear resource ('NetSuite vendor') and a precise lookup key ('by its externalId'), which immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like netsuite_get_vendor_by_id or netsuite_search_vendors_by_name. The example 'spk_supplier_<spendeskId>' further clarifies the scope.

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?

It clearly conveys the primary use case—finding a vendor when you have the externalId—and provides an example of the expected ID format. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., use get_vendor_by_id for internal NetSuite IDs), so it stops short of a perfect score.

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