get-business-partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are limited to the first N records, ordered ascending by Business Partner ID, and describes the default field set and how to override it via the `fields` parameter. This is strong coverage of the tool's observable behavior, though it doesn't mention response envelope or failure semantics beyond what the schema covers.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core behavior and default output, then direct the user to `fields` for extensions. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 description sufficiently covers the main return behavior, ordering, and default projection. Given the simple parameter set and lack of nested objects, it is adequately complete. A small gap is the lack of any explicit statement about empty results or pagination, but those are partially handled by the `top` parameter description.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for `fields` ('pass fields for anything else') and implies `top` through 'Returns the first N', but it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema for `nameContains`. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Business Partners from SAP S/4HANA'), clarifies that it covers customers, suppliers, and organizations, and notes the ordering by Business Partner ID. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get-sales-orders and get-purchase-orders.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieving business partner master data. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use get-sap-data for other entities,' the resource name and sibling tool names provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately for business partner list queries.

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