get_supplier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about failure handling, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects (likely none), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on invalid supplier_id. It also does not describe the response structure since output schema is absent.

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 description is short and to the point. The warning about data fabrication is front-loaded after the main purpose, but the warning is not overly long. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage safety note.

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 only 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral safety rule. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from clarifying what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., available relations) and how the tool behaves on errors (e.g., returns empty or throws). It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%: both parameters (relaciones and supplier_id) are described in the schema. The description does not add additional insight beyond the schema; the warning about not fabricating data applies to the tool's overall behavior, not parameter usage specifically. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific supplier'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_suppliers that list suppliers. It is concise and specific, though it does not name a sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_suppliers or get_supplier_invoice. The description implies it is for fetching supplier details, but does not specify when to prefer it over listing or other related tools. The warning about not fabricating data is helpful for error handling but not about selection.

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