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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the returned content — how the vendor accepts a request, what it must contain, whether dispatch is automatic or manual, and whether a guide link exists — which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation.

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 defines the output, the second gives the usage trigger. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so concretely (request method, required contents, automation vs manual, guide link). For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single vendor_id parameter, and the schema description already explains accepted id/name forms and examples. The description only implies that the id refers to one security vendor, adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Get the removal path for a single security vendor') and immediately enumerates what that path contains. The singular 'single security vendor' clearly separates it from the plural sibling list_vendors and from scan_domain.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger and ordering: 'Use after `scan_domain` to explain what the user has to do for each vendor that flagged them.' This routes the agent from scan_domain to this tool per flagged vendor. No explicit when-not condition or alternative is given, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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