risk_score_supplier

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses the scoring range, combination of ComplianceReport, binary recommendation (despite misnomer), and effect of strict criteria. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or required permissions, leaving gaps.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading purpose and range. It efficiently adds the option detail. However, a brief clarification on 'recomendacao binaria' would improve precision without adding length.

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 two parameters, the description covers the core functionality but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., existence of ComplianceReport) and doesn't elaborate on the output recommendation structure despite an output schema existing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so parameter meaning relies entirely on the description. It describes the effect of 'criterios_estritos' but does not describe 'cnpj' at all. This leaves the required parameter inadequately explained.

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 it calculates a risk score (0-100) for supplier due diligence, combining ComplianceReport with adjustments. It lists the output recommendation types, making the tool's purpose specific. However, it misleadingly calls the recommendation 'binaria' while listing four options, slightly reducing clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like analyze_cnpj_compliance or consultar_cnpj. The description implies use for supplier due diligence but does not set boundaries or exclude other scenarios.

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