swissco_vendor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: text results are row-shaped and bounded by limit, UID results are exact-match filtered on uidNo, and — most valuable — an absent UID does not imply the company is absent from the directory (companies can bid without a profile, and consortia carry no UID). That caveat prevents a false-negative conclusion an agent could otherwise draw.

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 scoping sentence is front-loaded and the closing caveat is high-value, but the middle paragraphs exhaustively enumerate 9 and 18 return fields respectively — an output schema exists, so this field dump largely duplicates structured data and inflates the description.

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 dual-mode lookup with a schema and output schema in place, the description covers both resolution paths, their differing result shapes, and the key edge case about missing UIDs. Pagination beyond `limit` and any behavior for ambiguous name matches (zero or many hits) are the only material gaps.

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, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that the same `query` parameter is interpreted two different ways (exact-confirmed UID vs. name search) and that `limit` only applies on the text path, which is not inferable from the bare property descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource (a company in simap's vendor directory) and the two lookup modes (UID or name), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like swissco_lookup or swissco_search, several of which sound like plausible substitutes for a directory lookup.

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 does distinguish the two query modes — a text query returns a row list, a UID resolves to one profile — which is implicit guidance on how to call it. It gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (swissco_lookup, swissco_search), no prerequisites, and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.

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