List suppliers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the paging and filtering behaviors, but does not disclose any additional traits like pagination defaults, sorting, or potential side effects. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds rich behavioral context beyond the feature list.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The primary action and key features are stated up front, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of default pagination or response format, but these are not critical for correct invocation given the schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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 all three parameters, so they are well-documented in the schema. The description links 'paging' and 'free-text filtering' to the parameters implicitly, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('suppliers'), and the key modifiers 'with paging and free-text filtering'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_customers or list_invoices by the resource name and is unambiguous.

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 use for listing suppliers but does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as bokio_get_supplier for single retrieval or mention when not to use it. There is no alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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