suppliers_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the data originates from ANAF, is read-only at the source, and the invoice history is capped at the last 10 recent incoming invoices — a retrieval limit an agent could not infer from the schema.

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, with the primary action and return payload front-loaded and the ANAF provenance caveat placed second. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the shape of the response (core data plus invoice history summary plus 10 recent invoices) and its source. Minor gap: it does not clarify how the companyId override interacts with the configured default, though the schema covers that.

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, so uuid and the companyId override are already fully documented. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific supplier') and even enumerates the returned payload (invoice history summary, last 10 incoming invoices), which goes beyond the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling suppliers_list, so it falls short of 5.

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 single-supplier scope implies the tool is for fetching one record by UUID, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no pointer to suppliers_list for discovery of the UUID. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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