risk_score_supplier

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

The description explains that the tool combines ComplianceReport, applies conservative adjustments, and that the criterios_estritos parameter reduces the score by 10 for anti-corruption policies. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or triggers external systems, and no annotations are provided to compensate.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and output, then elaborating on the optional parameter. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description mentions the score range and recommendation categories. However, it lacks context about what 'ComplianceReport' is or how the combination works, which could be important for interpreting the results. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the criterios_estritos parameter by explaining its effect (reduces score by 10 for anti-corruption policies), which goes beyond the schema's default/description. For cnpj, the schema already specifies format, so no additional info is needed.

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 the tool calculates a risk score (0-100) for supplier due diligence, combining ComplianceReport with conservative adjustments and returning a binary recommendation (approve, approve_with_reservations, investigate, refuse). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific compliance checks or data lookup.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_cnpj_compliance or consultar_certidao_federal. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use the tool, which reduces the agent's ability to select it appropriately.

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