purchase_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the ordering (most late first) and the default state (open), which is genuinely useful context. It does not confirm this is a non-mutating read, nor describe pagination/capping behavior beyond the default limit, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 compact clauses with no filler; the retrieval behavior and the ordering rule are front-loaded, followed immediately by the one enumeration that needed explaining.

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 read-only list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the key unknown (state values) is covered, but the agent is left guessing on limit capping, whether part_id/supplier_id accept IDs or names, and what the returned records look like. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it fully defines 'state' including the four accepted values and their meanings, which is the least self-evident parameter. The other three (limit, part_id, supplier_id) are left entirely to their names, with no format, max-limit, or filter-combination semantics.

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 (List) plus the resource (purchase orders) and discloses the ordering rule (most late first), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling is a PO-listing tool, so the confusion risk is low.

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 state vocabulary is spelled out, which implicitly tells the agent which value to pick for which situation (not received vs overdue vs arrived). However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus search_parts / supply_risks, nor how the filters interact or what limit actually caps.

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