mfc_ca_getTradePartners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Gets trade partners' and reveals nothing about read-only behavior, potential filtering, response format, or any side effects. For an API with parameters like available and office_code, the description is silent on how these affect the call.

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 extremely short ('取引先を取得します。'), which is concise but severely under-specified. It has no waste, but it lacks essential information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any usage context. The parameter descriptions in the schema help, but the description does not tie them together or provide the broader context an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters (available and office_code) have descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no extra information about these parameters, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 clear verb ('取得します' = retrieves) and a specific resource ('取引先' = trade partners), so an agent knows it's a retrieval operation for trade partners. However, it adds no differentiation from sibling get tools (e.g., getAccounts, getDepartments) beyond the resource name, and it essentially restates the tool's name without elaborating on scope or filtering.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it's for retrieving trade partners (which is implied by the name), any exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like mfc_ca_postTradePartners. An agent gets no context on when to select this over other get tools.

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