get_vendor

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the ID is human-readable (not internal GUID), which is useful context. But it doesn't mention read-only nature, error behavior for invalid IDs, or return format. With an output schema present, some burden is lifted, but safety/error behavior is still undisclosed.

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?

Extremely concise—a single sentence plus argument doc, zero waste. Every line earns its place. Front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description covers the key points: what it does, the ID semantics. The human-readable vs GUID distinction is important for GnuCash users. Could mention error/not-found behavior, but given the tool's simplicity this is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful detail: the ID is the human-readable GnuCash ID, not the internal GUID, which prevents misuse. It also gives a format example ('000001'). This is genuinely helpful beyond the bare schema.

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 fetches details for a specific vendor by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_vendors and create_vendor by the 'by ID' focus. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_customer or other get_* siblings.

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 purpose implies usage (retrieve one vendor's details) and the ID-focused wording helps differentiate from list_vendors. However, there's no explicit mention of when to use vs. alternatives or any prerequisites.

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