dolibarr_get_thirdparty

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 correctly identifies this as a read operation, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling (e.g., returns null if not found) or authentication requirements. The description is minimally sufficient for a simple get-by-ID.

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?

A single, compact sentence with no extraneous words. Information is front-loaded and precise.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning the return value or error behavior, but it is not critically missing.

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?

The description only restates the parameter name ('by its ID') and adds no new meaning beyond the schema's property name 'id'. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient compensation. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description should ideally clarify the ID's format or constraints.

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 action (Get), resource (thirdparty), and identifier method (by its ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dolibarr_find_thirdparty_by_email and dolibarr_list_thirdparties.

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 implies usage when you have the thirdparty ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., find by email or list all). The agent must infer the context from the tool name and description alone.

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