mfc_ca_getTradePartners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the tool's name/action with '取得します' and adds no context about side effects, return format, pagination, authentication, or read-only nature. The filter semantics are documented in the schema, not in the tool description.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and presents the core purpose immediately. While it is thin, it is not verbose.

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 read tool with one optional parameter, the description and schema together let an agent make a correct invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without return-format expectations, safety confirmation, or guidance on choosing this over sibling getters. The context is minimally functional but not complete.

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% and the available parameter is clearly explained, including the nuance that false means 'all' rather than 'disabled only'. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but because the schema already handles parameter semantics thoroughly, the baseline score 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 '取引先を取得します' clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and the resource (trade partners). It is distinct from siblings like mfc_ca_postTradePartners due to the verb, and from other getters by naming a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with related sibling getters.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mfc_ca_getAccounts or mfc_ca_getSubAccounts. There is also no mention of prerequisites, default behavior, or scenarios that would select this tool. The only usage-related detail lives in the parameter schema, not in the description.

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