send_vendor_test

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

Annotations offer no positive safety hints, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the email is sent to the merchant (not vendor) and uses sample data for preview. It leaves out secondary effects like whether a record is created, but the core behavior is 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, recipient, and purpose. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and intent. It doesn't mention prerequisites or response format, but the low complexity makes the description adequate.

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 description does not explain the role of vendorId at all. With 0% schema coverage, it should compensate, but the parameter's meaning is left to inference. The agent cannot determine that vendorId selects the vendor whose order sheet is rendered without guessing.

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 'Email' with a clear resource 'MERCHANT' and scope 'test order sheet rendered with sample data'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sending to the vendor, making its unique purpose obvious.

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 phrase 'never the vendor' provides a clear exclusion and implies the tool is for merchant preview. While it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, the contrast with the vendor-sending flow gives practical guidance on when to use it.

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