Get Supplier's Fabric Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return structure in detail, mentions the count=0 behavior for empty results, and clarifies that prices are supplier-specific quotes. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, usage examples, prerequisite, workflow, returns, errors) and zero redundant information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: the first states core functionality, subsequent sections provide practical guidance, and the Chinese translation adds localization without duplication.

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 read-only catalog tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisite, workflow integration, detailed return structure, and error behavior. The combination of annotations (safety profile) and description (operational context) gives the agent everything needed to use this tool effectively.

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% with a single well-documented parameter (supplier_id). The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by stating it's 'from search_suppliers' and providing example format 'sup_001', but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('List all fabrics') and resource ('a specific supplier'), including the scope ('with quoted prices'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_fabric_detail (individual fabric) and search_fabrics (general search) by focusing on supplier-specific catalog retrieval.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'USE WHEN' examples for three query patterns and a clear workflow sequence (search_suppliers → get_supplier_detail → get_supplier_fabrics). It also specifies a prerequisite ('MUST have a valid supplier_id') and mentions alternative tools (search_suppliers, get_supplier_detail) in the workflow context.

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