screen_bom_for_compliance_tool

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

The description adds one behavioral rule beyond annotations: unknown origin fails if the policy requires evidence. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'cannot pass' means and what happens with known origins. The annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive safety, so the description adds some context but not 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words and both clauses carry meaning. It scores well on conciseness, though the extreme terseness contributes to the lack of helpful detail captured in other dimensions.

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 two required nested-object parameters with zero schema descriptions, an output schema that is not visible, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough. It leaves crucial questions about workflow configuration, policy structure, and pass/fail behavior unanswered.

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 coverage is 0% for both parameters (bom and policy), so the description must compensate. It only implies that bom contains origins and policy may require evidence, but it gives no structural hints, allowed fields, nesting, or relationship between the two objects. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs.

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 conveys a general action ('Apply a configurable sourcing workflow') and a consequence ('unknown origin cannot pass a policy requiring evidence'), but it never explicitly names the BOM, compliance screening, or what 'pass' means. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is vague and does not distinguish the tool from siblings.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The phrase 'unknown origin cannot pass a policy requiring evidence' implies a compliance-checking use case, but it does not tell an agent when to choose this over sibling tools like compare_bom_options_tool or generate_bom_tool.

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