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

Annotations already indicate read-only, but the description adds substantial context: return format (score 0-1), risk indicators, negative mention evidence, classification, and recommendation. The example illustrates how to interpret the output, which goes well beyond the annotation's safety profile.

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 moderately detailed but every sentence adds value: use case, output, example, and source. It is front-loaded with the trigger scenario. It could be trimmed slightly, but overall it is well-structured and not wasteful.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, use case, and interpretation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further guidance.

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?

The schema has a single vendor_name parameter with no description, so the description must compensate. It indirectly defines the parameter through the use case and example ('Vendor X'), making it clear that the value is the vendor's name. However, it lacks explicit detail on format or matching rules, which would elevate it further.

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 function: screening a vendor for financial instability or procurement risk. It specifies the output (risk score 0-1, indicators, evidence) and provides a concrete example, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_vendor_benchmark.

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 explicitly says 'Use when screening a vendor for financial instability or procurement risk before a long-term contract commitment,' which gives a clear trigger context. It does not name alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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