find_vendor

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what data is returned (status page URL, platform, feed existence, newest poll state) and implies a cached map lookup, but it doesn't state read-only behavior, error/no-match handling, or whether any external calls are made.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first states purpose and output fields, the second gives a usage heuristic. There is no filler, and the most important action ('Resolve', 'Use this first') is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return fields. It covers the tool's purpose and when to use it, though it doesn't mention no-match behavior or result formatting, which would make it fully 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (query examples and limit range/default), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds 'name, slug or status-page domain' and mentions limit indirectly, but doesn't materially go beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the resource ('entry in the 1,100+ vendor status-page map') plus the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first-step lookup for unknown slugs.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first when unsure of the exact vendor slug,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'first' directive implies it precedes the sibling status/incident tools.

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