get-purchase-orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses that results are the first N records, that ordering is ascending by Purchase Order number, and that `fields` changes which columns are returned. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but the read-only nature is clear from 'List' and 'Returns'.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, ordering behavior, and field customization. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and a rich schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, default columns, and field selection. It does not explain the exact return shape, but 'Returns the first N' plus the schema's empty-array note is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3 and the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds useful context for `fields` by stating it returns different columns, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for `top` or `supplier`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Purchase Orders from SAP S/4HANA') and even names the default return content ('including supplier and address'). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get-sales-orders and get-business-partners.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource name and origin, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The `fields` schema hint mentions list-entity-fields, but no explicit routing guidance appears in the description itself.

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