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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it scans reports, returns compliance gaps, missing data flags, and source references from CDP and GRI. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the target audience. Each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, input/assessment, and use case. While slightly verbose, it avoids redundancy and remains focused.

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 a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, data sources, and ideal use cases. The output schema handles return structure details, so the description needn't repeat them. Minor omission: no mention of the async parameter or handling of optional identifiers, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (year, async, supplierId, supplierName) are already documented. The description only loosely echoes 'supplier name or identifier', which does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. With high coverage, this baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('scans') and resource ('vendor ESG reports') to clearly state the tool's function: identifying suppliers lacking diversity disclosures in GRI or CDP filings. This unique focus on diversity disclosures distinguishes it from sibling tools like supplier_esg_audit or vendor_esg_blacklist_monitor.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('vendor risk assessment and ESG compliance tracking') and targets a specific audience ('For COOs'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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