Get vendor overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what the tool returns: one vendor, aggregate vulnerability statistics, and the five most recent vulnerabilities. It doesn't mention error behavior or permissions, but for a simple read operation, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 just two sentences, front-loading the primary action in the first sentence and usage context in the second. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what is returned (vendor, stats, recent vulns) and when to use it (after vendor ID identification). It doesn't cover edge cases like not-found behavior, but the usage instruction and output schema make the description sufficiently 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 schema provides only a 'vendorId' string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Use after identifying a vendor ID' clarifies that vendorId is the identifier of the vendor to fetch, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 begins with 'Return one vendor, aggregate vulnerability statistics, and its five most recent vulnerabilities,' which clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_vendors and get_vulnerability by combining vendor details with statistics and recent vulnerabilities.

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 'Use after identifying a vendor ID' provides an explicit precondition for when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context signals and the instruction make it clear that this is for post-identification overview rather than discovery or individual vulnerability lookup.

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