suppliers_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It correctly implies this is a read-only listing operation and adds the behavioral note about automatic creation via ANAF e-Factura sync (useful context about data provenance). However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior beyond schema-defined params, or any rate limits. The description adds value but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 three sentences of meaningful content: the primary purpose, the data provenance detail, and the search capability. Each sentence earns its place with distinct information. Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Slightly more verbose than an ideal two-sentence description, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core listing behavior, the search capability, and supplier provenance. For a straightforward list tool this is reasonably complete, but it lacks information about the return structure, whether the result set includes all supplier fields, and pagination semantics. Given the relatively simple nature of a list operation, this is adequate but could note what fields are returned.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (page, limit, search, companyId). The description adds marginal value by explaining that search works 'by name, CUI, or email' and clarifying that companyId 'overrides configured default' — this latter point is genuinely useful context beyond the bare schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate with the small bonus from the search-field clarification.

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 what the tool does: 'List suppliers for the selected company grouped alphabetically.' The verb 'list' plus the resource 'suppliers' plus the scope qualifier 'for the selected company' and the grouping detail make the purpose specific. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like suppliers_get, but the verb+resource is clear enough.

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 notes suppliers are 'automatically created from incoming invoices via ANAF e-Factura synchronization,' which gives useful context about when suppliers exist in the system. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to favor this over alternatives like suppliers_get or suppliers_create, nor does it mention when-not-to-use scenarios. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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