Resolve a U.S. vendor before payment; ambiguity never creates a charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uei | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| aliases | No | ||
| zip_code | No | ||
| epa_frs_id | No | ||
| company_name | Yes | ||
| street_address | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds a distinct behavioral guarantee that ambiguity never creates a charge, which is exactly the kind of high-value context annotations do not express. There is no contradiction.
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?
Single compact sentence with two clauses; the main purpose is front-loaded and the charge-behavior clause earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition.
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?
Despite strong annotations, the lack of an output schema and zero parameter documentation means an agent cannot predict the return shape or know how to supply fields like aliases, uei, or epa_frs_id. The description gives a high-level contract but not enough to invoke the tool correctly in all cases.
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 no property descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain company_name, state, aliases, uei, or any other parameter. An agent must infer meaning from field names alone, which is insufficient for eight parameters.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Resolve a U.S. vendor before payment.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which build evidence packages or fetch regulatory records, and conveys that its core job is vendor identity resolution.
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 phrase 'before payment' gives a clear when-to-use context, and 'ambiguity never creates a charge' adds a decision-relevant safety condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
build_vendor_evidence_package and get_vendor_regulatory_records both result in purchasing regulatory evidence, with only packaging and record type distinguishing them, which could lead to misselection. resolve_vendor is clearly distinct as a prerequisite, but the two purchase tools still overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: build_vendor_evidence_package, get_vendor_regulatory_records, resolve_vendor. The verbs and nouns are predictable and clearly domain-specific.
Three tools is on the low side but sufficient for a focused resolve-then-purchase workflow. The count is reasonable and not excessive, though a few more operations could round out the offering.
The set covers resolving a vendor and purchasing two types of evidence, but lacks any way to retrieve previously purchased packages, check purchase status, or list available evidence types. These are notable gaps for a vendor evidence service.