list_vendors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses helpful behavioral details: the 'Showing X-Y of Z vendors' leading line, default compact format, limit=0 count-only semantics, and that active_only defaults to True (implying inactive vendors are hidden unless explicitly requested). These behaviors go beyond what the schema reveals.

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 moderately sized but front-loads the essential behavior in the first two sentences, then systematically documents each parameter. The multi-line Args block is clearly structured. Slightly verbose in places but earns its length.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and schema coverage of 0%, but has an output schema. The description explains output format, pagination rules, special cases (limit=0, verbose mode), and document each parameter's semantics including defaults. Given no annotations exist, the description does a strong job of covering the behavioral surface. The output schema presumably covers return structure, so return format isn't a gap.

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 carry the weight for all 4 parameters. It does well: explains active_only (filter behavior + default True), verbose (full JSON with guid, address, notes), limit (page size, max 250, 0=count only), and offset (0-indexed, default 0). The active_only default being hidden by schema default is explicitly called out.

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 'List all vendors' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_vendor, get_vendor, update_vendor, and delete_vendor by focusing on listing. The additional detail about output format (count line, one-line-per-vendor) further clarifies scope.

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 explains output format nuances, pagination with offset, limit=0 count-only behavior, and verbose mode. It clearly says when to use verbose=true. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use vendor_spending_report), but the context is reasonably clear for a listing operation.

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