Get Cluster's Suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return structure (including sorting by quality_score), pagination behavior (has_more), and error handling (empty data if no suppliers). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, prerequisite, workflow, returns, errors). Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), rich annotations (safety and idempotency covered), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It adds necessary context like sorting, pagination indicators, and error cases, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 the schema fully documents cluster_id, limit, and offset. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra syntax or format explanations). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all suppliers') and resource ('in a specific industrial cluster'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_supplier_detail (individual supplier) or search_suppliers (general search). The title reinforces this with 'Get Cluster's Suppliers'.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use examples (user queries about factories/suppliers in clusters), a prerequisite (must have cluster_id from search_clusters), and a workflow (search_clusters → pick cluster_id → get_cluster_suppliers). This clearly guides usage versus alternatives like search_suppliers or get_supplier_detail.

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