vendorping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output type ('CSV text') and the report columns, which is useful, but it does not mention any caveats about data scope, performance, or whether the export has side effects. This is decent but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, format, and content list efficiently, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: CSV text containing specific fields. It lacks only an explicit routing statement relative to sibling tools, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms no properties are expected. The description defines the fixed scope and output content, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('the full vendor document report'), and the output format ('CSV text'). It also lists the included fields, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that return summaries or filtered subsets rather than a full report.

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 word 'full' implies this is the appropriate choice when a complete vendor document report is needed, which moderately contrasts with the more targeted sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compliance_summary or list_missing_docs, so usage guidance relies on inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does reveal the operation is a read-only retrieval ('Get') and what the response contains (totals for five compliance categories). It does not discuss permissions or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read-only summary this is sufficiently transparent.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that leads with the operation and immediately specifies all returned categories. Every part is informative and there is no filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, this description provides all necessary invocation context: the tool is a no-argument call and the returned summary categories are enumerated. It is complete for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, so parameter naming and description constraints do not apply. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing the description needs to clarify about arguments.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get compliance summary) and enumerates the exact totals included, making it clear this is the aggregate dashboard view. This differentiates it from sibling tools that target individual item lists such as get_expiring_docs or list_missing_docs.

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 implies this is the high-level summary rather than a detailed document list, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over get_expiring_docs, list_missing_docs, or search_vendor_docs. An agent must infer usage from the category names; no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond purpose: it includes documents already received and uses a default look-ahead window of 30 days. Since this is a read-only 'List' operation, the lack of explicit side-effect warnings is acceptable, though it could mention sort order or output format for full transparency.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, adds an important inclusion qualifier, and ends with the purpose. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, the default window, the inclusion behavior, and why it is used. Minor gaps like return format or sorting are not critical for an agent to successfully invoke the tool, but a brief mention would make it fully self-contained.

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 already describes the 'days' parameter as 'Look-ahead window in days (default 30)' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this default without adding any new meaning, so it contributes no additional parameter value beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('vendor documents') with a clear scope ('expiring within the next N days'), and the added clause 'including ones already received' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_missing_docs and search_vendor_docs. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from similar list/search 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?

The description gives clear context: it is meant for identifying vendor documents that expire soon so renewals can be requested. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or 'when not to use', but the intended scenario is evident and no misleading exclusions are present.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose useful behavior — the result set is global ('every vendor document') and ordering is 'expired/overdue at the top, then by days remaining' — but it omits return-shape details and creates a mild internal tension between 'not yet received' and 'expired'.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then packs the ordering rule into a compact em-dash clause. Every word earns its place; there is no filler and no repetition of what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is listed, the inclusion criterion, and the sort order. The main gap is that the return fields are only partially inferable ('days remaining'), and the expired-vs-not-yet-received wording is slightly ambiguous, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The phrase 'every vendor document' correctly signals that no filtering is available, which is consistent with the 0-parameter schema; per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 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?

States a specific action (list), resource (vendor documents), and a precise scope: only those still missing/not yet received, plus the sort order. It is implicitly distinguishable from get_expiring_docs (docs approaching expiry vs. already overdue/missing), but the description never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 implies the use case — checking which vendor documents are outstanding — but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With four siblings including the closely related get_expiring_docs, the agent receives no routing help to choose between this tool and its alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent enough for a search tool: 'Search' plus 'Returns matching records' clearly communicates a read-only query, and the description adds useful details about the returned statuses and expiry dates. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but those are not critical for a simple search tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the key output details. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and a clear schema, the description plus schema is sufficiently complete. It explains what is searched, how matching works, what is returned, and the relevant status/expiry fields. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage and fully explains the query parameter, including case-insensitivity and shorthand support. The tool description largely repeats the parameter semantics without adding significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('tracked vendor documents'), and the search dimensions ('by vendor name or document type'). It also summarizes the return values, which makes the purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools that focus on exporting, summaries, expiring documents, or missing documents.

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 implies usage: use this to search vendor documents by name or type. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over the specialized siblings such as list_missing_docs or get_expiring_docs, especially since this tool can also return status/expiry information. Some routing guidance would improve clarity.

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