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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions content areas but does not state whether the tool performs read-only lookups, fetches live data, requires permissions, or returns a structured report. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to aggregate multiple data sources.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose (DORA Art. 28 ICT third-party risk assessment) and then lists four distinct content categories without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool seems complex given the combination of four content areas and the absence of an output schema or annotations. The description lists what is covered but does not explain the return structure, how the provider parameter influences results, or any prerequisites. It is partially complete but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single 'provider' parameter with examples (SAP, Salesforce, AWS, Temenos). The description adds DORA context but does not elaborate on parameter syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a DORA Art. 28 ICT third-party risk assessment and lists specific components (CVE history, news, GLEIF registration, contractual checklist). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual topics, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'assess'.

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 DORA Art. 28 reference provides a clear context for when to use this tool—when a third-party risk assessment is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the comparison to sibling tools (e.g., cve_search, dora_news) implicit.

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