suppliers_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states core data (name, CUI) is read-only from ANAF, which is a useful behavioral trait that reveals the read-only nature of core fields. However, it does not disclose what happens with the invoice history portion (whether it is also read-only), response structure, or any auth/permission requirements. The description adds some value but omits meaningful behavioral details.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the primary function and scope, the second clarifies the data provenance. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 2-param retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of returned data, and data provenance. It doesn't explain the return format (response structure of invoice history), but since there's no output schema, some detail on what gets returned could help. Still, for a read tool with two well-documented params, this is reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters (uuid and companyId are documented in the schema). The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying that companyId 'overrides configured default,' which is already in the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond by explaining what is retrieved (invoice summary + recent invoices), enriching the agent's understanding of what the uuid parameter targets beyond the schema's terse 'UUID of the supplier to retrieve.'

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 states a specific verb ('Get detailed information') with a specific resource ('a specific supplier'), and clarifies the scope: 'including invoice history summary and the last 10 recent incoming invoices.' It also notes that core data (name, CUI) comes from ANAF and is read-only, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like suppliers_list, suppliers_create, suppliers_update, and suppliers_delete.

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 this is for retrieving a single supplier's detail view, contrasted implicitly with suppliers_list (retrieving multiple). It explains the scope (invoice history + recent invoices) and that core data is read-only from ANAF, giving the agent context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly list exclusion conditions or name an alternative tool as a comparison.

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