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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. Description adds that it uses CDP/GRI data and returns specific structured output fields, providing additional context about data sources and result contents.

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?

Description is three sentences plus keyword list, front-loaded with 'quickly check if a vendor is blacklisted'. No wasted words, though keywords are slightly redundant.

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 output schema present and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, data sources, and use cases. No need to detail return values since output schema exists. Slight lack of error handling info, but acceptable.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions vendor legal name or identifier but adds no new semantics beyond schema; it doesn't explain year or async behavior.

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?

Description clearly states it checks if a vendor is blacklisted for ESG non-compliance using CDP and GRI data, and specifies outputs like ESG risk score, blacklist status, and compliance violations. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes from sibling vendor risk tools.

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?

States 'Ideal for vendor due diligence, risk assessment, and sustainability reporting', giving clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so not a 5.

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