get_supplier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the name: the data originates from a local supplier.yaml file rather than a remote system, and the response bundles a default account. It says nothing about failure modes if the file is missing or unconfigured, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the data source front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting any usage guidance, but every word carries information.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. The description covers the source and contents of the result; only guidance on when to use it and what happens on a missing config file is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the mention of 'výchozí účet' clarifies the shape of the payload even though it is not a parameter.

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 names the resource precisely – the invoicing supplier read from supplier.yaml, plus the default account that comes with it – so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as list_customers or lookup_company, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (for example, that supplier.yaml must exist or be configured). The agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.

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