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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the output shape (0-10 score, per-category findings, red flags), the data-limitation ('does not retrieve filings, news, or breach databases' - it reasons only over supplied vendor details), the AI-generation disclosure + content hash, the refusal policy with no charge, and the x402 price. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond a schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then lenses, then output, then limitations, then alternative, then refusal and price. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical x402 pricing at the end is slightly awkward placement but informative. Minor efficiency loss from stacking many clauses.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single trivial parameter schema, the description covers output shape, input requirements, limitations, disclosure/compliance, refusal behavior, pricing, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 'task' parameter, but the schema description is generic boilerplate ('Task/query text for this SKU'). The prose description partially compensates by explaining the reasoning basis ('vendor details you supply'), which hints at what the task text should contain, though it does not specify the input format for vendor details. Better than baseline 3 due to the input-content hint.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope ('structured vendor risk assessment across four lenses') and explicitly differentiates from sibling security.massat-audit by naming it and contrasting use cases. An agent can distinguish this from procurement.council, procurement.trust-layer, reputation.lookup without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing: 'For an automated audit of a live agent system, see security.massat-audit.' Also states the refusal condition (>=5 web sources unfetchable) and the pricing. When-to-use, when-to-use-alternative, and failure behavior are all disclosed.

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